Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1728 (PNJ)

Ravinder Kumar v. State of Punjab

2012-12-04

RAJIVE BHALLA, REKHA MITTAL

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J.: - The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing order of eviction dated 18.09.2009 and order dated 02.06.2010, dismissing their appeal as also orders dated 07.02.2011 and 02.11.2011, rejecting their claim of ownership. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that jamabandi for the year 1938-39 records that Khasra No.545 (26-12) is the ownership of “Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zar Khewat” in possession of Mela Ram etc. as shareholders and in cultivating possession of Chuhra son of Ganju. It is further submitted that though the nature of the land is Banjar Qadim and Banjar Jadid, the same entry regarding cultivating possession is repeated in jamabandi for the year 1942-43. The jamabandi for the year 1965-66 records the ownership of private persons in old Khasra No.541 min, 542 min, 545 min, 552 min, 555 min, 265 min. As per jamabandi for the year 1978-79, the new numbers of this land are Khewat Khatauni No.226/250, 251, 252, 253, Khasra No.5//9(2-16), 12(5-14), 19/2(56-12), 21/2(3-16),161(0-9), 5//3/1(5-6), 10//11 (7-2), 13//12/3(2-17), 19/3(2-8). Counsel for the petitioners further submits that though the Gram Panchayat is recorded as owner, the land, in dispute, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat as it was in cultivating possession of petitioners, through their predecessors, prior to 26.01.1950. It is further submitted that the petitioners have purchased this land from the original owner thereby clearly proving that the land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. 3. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 4. The Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1961 Act’). The Collector, vide order dated 18.09.2009, has ordered the petitioners’ eviction. The appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. The Collector as well as the appellate authority, recorded a prima-facie opinion that the land, in dispute, vests in the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners, thereafter, filed a petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, raising a question of title. The Collector as well as the appellate authority, have rejected this contention. The petitioners’ plea of ownership is based upon entries in the jamabandies for the years 1938-39 and 1942-43. The petitioners contend that the land is recorded in the name of Mela Ram etc. as shareholders and in cultivating possession of Chuhra. The Collector as well as the appellate authority, have rejected this contention. The petitioners’ plea of ownership is based upon entries in the jamabandies for the years 1938-39 and 1942-43. The petitioners contend that the land is recorded in the name of Mela Ram etc. as shareholders and in cultivating possession of Chuhra. The land is, therefore, excluded from Shamilat Deh, under Section 2(g)(viii) of the 1961 Act. A perusal of the aforesaid jamabandies reveals that the land, in dispute, is recorded as “Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zar Khewat” and, therefore, came to vest in the Gram Panchayat under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 Act and thereafter under the 1961 Act. The petitioners were required to prove that the land is excluded from Shamilat Deh under any of the exclusion clauses enacted by Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act. The petitioners’ contention that the land, in dispute, was in cultivating possession of their predecessors, is falsified by entries in the relevant jamabandies, which clearly record that the land, in dispute, was Banjar Qadim, i.e., land that has remained fallow for eight or more harvests. The land, in dispute, therefore, could not be cultivated by the proprietors or by Chuhra son of Ganju. The petitioners’ plea that their predecessors were in cultivating possession of the land, in dispute, prior to 1950, stands falsified and rebutted. A plea raised by the petitioners that as the petitioners have purchased the land, in dispute, they are entitled to retain the land, cannot be accepted as even if a sale deed was executed in their favour, their vendors were not owners of the land, in dispute, and could not pass valid title to the petitioners. 5. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------