Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 105 (PNJ)

Baru v. Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab

2011-01-12

HEMANT GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.:- Challenge in the present petition is to an order passed by learned Collector, Ludhiana dated 21.12.1981 (Annexure P-5) and the order in appeal passed by learned Commissioner dated 15.11.1985 (Annexure P- 6), whereby a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’) was dismissed. 2. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 11 of the Act claiming the ownership over the land measuring 31 kanals 6 marlas as per the Jamabandi for the year 1976-1977. The Panchayat asserted that earlier the Panchayat has succeeded in a case filed by the petitioner before the civil Court and that the petitioner is not the owner of the suit land and has no concern with the same. In evidence, the petitioner appeared as his own witness as PW-1. He deposed that Mohammadans in the village have given land in dispute to his father as a gift and he is in cultivating possession of the same for the last 40 years. He and his father have never given any chakota of this land. He further deposed that during consolidation in the year 1960, the land was given to him. The petitioner has produced a copy of the Consolidation Scheme (Exh. P-2), Misal Hakiat for the year 1959-1960 (Exh. P-3) and Jamabandi (Exh. P-5). Apart from the said evidence, the petitioner examined PW-2-Sh. Atma Ram. He has deposed that the possession of the land was given to the petitioner during consolidation. He further deposed that disputed land might be of the Pachayat but the well belongs to the petitioner-Baru. Petitioner examined Kartar Ram as PW-3 who has deposed that disputed land was in possession of the father of the petitioner. It was Mohammadans who have given this land to his father as a gift. 3. On behalf of the Gram Panchayat, Member Panchayat-Harnam Singh was examined as RW-1. It was asserted that petitioner is in unauthorized possession of the said land for the last 15 years. The Panchayat also examined Mal Singh as RW-2 who has deposed that the land in the possession of the petitioner is 31 kanals. Sarpanch-Puran Chand has been examined as RW-3 who has produced a Jamabandi for the year 1976- 1977 (Exh. R-1). He has further deposed that before 1961 the disputed land was Banjar. The Panchayat also examined Mal Singh as RW-2 who has deposed that the land in the possession of the petitioner is 31 kanals. Sarpanch-Puran Chand has been examined as RW-3 who has produced a Jamabandi for the year 1976- 1977 (Exh. R-1). He has further deposed that before 1961 the disputed land was Banjar. He denied that possession was given to the petitioner by Consolidation Officer. He asserted that the disputed land is under the ownership of Panchayat before 1947. 4. Learned Collector on the basis of the evidence found that the Gram Panchayat is recorded as owner in the Jamabandies. Reliance was placed upon AIR 1974 Pb. 283 Shiv Charan Singh vs. Gram Panchayat Narike, Tehsil Malerkotla to hold that from the Jamabandi, the disputed land is in the ownership of the Panchayat. It was also found that the petitioner has not produced any evidence that he was in the possession of this land before 26.1.1950 and consequently, dismissed the petition. In the appeal, learned Commissioner affirmed the finding recorded. It also held that the petitioner has not produced any document to show that the land in dispute is the same which he got after consolidation operations and that the petitioner has not produced any revenue record that he is in possession of the land in dispute since 1961-1962 as cultivator. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court has relied upon (Annexure P-2) Statement of Accounts dated 22.6.1921, wherein the Ralla, father of the petitioner is allegedly given 4 bighas in Shamlat deh and 2 kanals for the house as gift by the Muslims. The petitioner also relies upon an extract of the Consolidation Scheme wherein the land measuring 5 bighas 12 biswas and 9 biswanis was reserved for the petitioner in the Scheme. Therefore, it is contended that since the land has been reserved for the petitioner in the Consolidation Scheme, therefore, in terms of Section 23-A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 the petitioner is in possession as owner. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the document (Annexure P-2) was not produced before the authorities below and that the petitioner has failed to link the land mentioned in the Scheme with the land in dispute. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the document (Annexure P-2) was not produced before the authorities below and that the petitioner has failed to link the land mentioned in the Scheme with the land in dispute. It is contended that 5 bighas 11 biswas of land will be approximately 9 kanals whereas the petitioner is claiming title over the land measuring 31 kanals 6 marlas. It is the categorical case of the Panchayat that the land in possession of the petitioner is in unauthorized possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has not produced any document to show that he is in possession on or before 26.1.1950 and thus, the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Act has been rightly dismissed. 7. The present is a writ of certiorari seeking quashing of the order passed by the Collector on 21.12.1981 and in the appeal on 15.11.1985 by the Commissioner. Since the document (Annexure P-2) was not produced before the authorities below, reliance of the petitioner on the said document is not tenable. Still further, it is recited therein that 4 bighas of Shamlat deh is given to the father of the petitioner as a gift. It is doubtful whether the Muslims could gift such land, part of the Shamlat deh, in favour of the father of the petitioner. Still further, the petitioner has not linked the aforesaid land in dispute. The document further recites that 2 kanals of land has been given for the house of the petitioner. In the year 1921, the measurements were in the bighas and not in the kanals, therefore, even the said recital in the document is doubtful veracity. Similarly, document (Annexure P-3) is an alleged extract of the Consolidation Scheme reserving the land measuring 5 bighas 12 biswas and 9 biswanis for the petitioner. Again, the petitioner has not connected the land said to be reserved for the petitioner as the land in dispute in the present case. The petitioner is claiming title over the land measuring 31 kanals 6 marlas. The land is owned by Panchayat as per revenue record. 8. The petitioner could succeed only if he or his predecessor in interest were in possession to the extent of their share on or before 21.1.1950. The petitioner is claiming title over the land measuring 31 kanals 6 marlas. The land is owned by Panchayat as per revenue record. 8. The petitioner could succeed only if he or his predecessor in interest were in possession to the extent of their share on or before 21.1.1950. In the absence of any evidence or the fact that the petitioner or his predecessor including his father and Mohammadans were in possession on 26.1.1950, the claim of the petitioner has been rightly dismissed. Still further, from the Jamabandies for the year 1959-1960, the land in dispute measuring 31 kanals 6 marlas except 2 kanals 1 marla is either Banjar Qadim or Barani. In respect of 2 kanals 1 marla, the entry is gair mumkin abadi, Bazigar. The petitioner cannot be said to be in cultivating possession of the Banjar Qadim land recorded as owned by the Gram Panchayat. Entries in the said Jamabandi do not prove the possession of the petitioner on or before 26.1.1950. The petitioner cannot claim a declaration of his title over the suit property. It is rightly declined by the Courts below. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the Courts below which may warrant any interference in the present petition. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------