Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1444 (PNJ)

Gram Panchayat Nanu Majra v. State of Punjab

2013-11-06

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, JASBIR SINGH

body2013
Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petitions bearing Nos.4056 of 2012 and 12363 of 2012, involving similar questions of law and facts. For facility of reference, facts are being mentioned from CWP No.4056 of 2012. Private respondents filed an application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short, The Act), claiming title in land total measuring 142 kanal 6 marla. It was their case that they are right holders in village, at the time of consolidation proceedings, prorata cut was imposed upon them and the land in dispute was kept separate unnecessarily. It was not reserved for any common purpose. Upon notice, halfhearted reply was filed by the Gram Panchayat through its Sarpanch. It is on record that one of the petitioners was real fatherinlaw of the then Sarpanch. The Collector on receipt of pleadings of both the parties, did not frame issues as is necessary to decide question of title. The matter was taken up and decided in a summary manner. The private respondents were declared owners vide order dated 10.6.2010. Relevant portion of the order reads thus: “The arguments of both the counsel of the parties were heard and the evidence brought on record and statements of witnesses I am reached at the conclusion that the land mentioned in the Head Note by the petitioner bearing land Khasra No.83/109, Khasara No.12/17 (40), 16/2//2 (318), 18/2 (10)m 19/2 (018), 3 (018), Khatoni No.110 Khasra No.4/2 (37), 7(33), 8(216), 24/1 (717), Khatoni No.118, Khasra No.9//1/1(36), 9//22/3(010), 23 (18), 29(119), 38(412) is a disputed land and the forefather of the answering respondent are in possession of the said land earlier to 26 January 1950 and this land is in possession of answering respondent. The Panchayat has never held any auction of this land nor the answering respondent has produced any record which shows that they have any concern with this land. The after leaving number mentioned in the Head Note of petition the above mentioned petitioners were declared as owner of the land.” Without discussing any document on record and also not even mentioning that the land was being put to auction by the Gram Panchayat above finding was given. At the time of hearing today, we specifically asked counsel for respondents to show any document on record showing possession of the private respondents before 26.1.1950. At the time of hearing today, we specifically asked counsel for respondents to show any document on record showing possession of the private respondents before 26.1.1950. Counsel has no answer to the same and it is virtually admitted that no revenue document exists on record to show that the private respondents were in cultivating possession of the land in dispute measuring 48 kanals 6 marlas which was declared their ownership vide order dated 10.6.2010. In appeal also, without discussing above said fact and without referring to documents on record, finding given by the Collector was affirmed. No doubt, reference was made to the lease register but the evidence was rejected by stating that only plot numbers are mentioned without specifying the khasra numbers of the land which was put to auction. That fact could have been verified asking the Gram Panchayat to provide further evidence but nothing was done. Order was passed in a cyclostyle manner depriving rights of the Gram Panchayat in 48 kanal 6 marla of land. There is nothing on record to show that any prorata cut was imposed upon the right holders and the land in dispute was kept separate, as alleged by them. No such evidence was produced and finding has also not been given in terms of plea taken by the private respondents in their application filed under Section 11 of the Act. Quasi judicial authorities when deciding question of title are supposed to exercise jurisdiction akin to a civil court. After looking into pleadings of the parties issues need to be framed and thereafter looking into evidence on record finding has to be given. It was so said by a Single Bench of this Court in Bachna v. Gram Panchayat of village Mehmoodpur Jattan, Tehsil and District Patiala and others PLR Vol.CXLI(20053) page 576: “5. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. It is apparent from the records that the Collector while passing orders Annexures P8 and P9, after referring to many documents, had failed to give any finding as to under what provisions of law. Gram Panchayat had become owner of the land in dispute. Collector had not referred to any provisions of Section 2(g) of the Act to say so. It is apparent from the records that the Collector while passing orders Annexures P8 and P9, after referring to many documents, had failed to give any finding as to under what provisions of law. Gram Panchayat had become owner of the land in dispute. Collector had not referred to any provisions of Section 2(g) of the Act to say so. It had only been said by the Collector that since the petitioner has failed to prove his possession before January 26, 1950, he could not be declared as owner of the property in dispute. Fact, referred to above, may be relevant for deciding an application for ejectment of the petitioner but when question of title was being decided, it was incumbent upon the Collector to frame issues, allow the parties to lead evidence and then give a finding as to under what provisions of law Gram panchayat would be deemed to have become owner of the land in dispute. As per Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari (Annexures P1 to P3), commencing from the year 1950, land was shown as Shamlat Deh Hasab Hesas Mudarza Shajra Nasab. Some part of it was shown as Banjar Kadim and rest of the land was shown in self cultivation of the cosharers. Under these circumstances, it was necessary for the Collector to take note of entries referred to above, and then give a finding as to under what circumstances, Gram panchayat had become owner of the land in dispute. It was apparent from the records that the Commissioner, while dismissing appeal of the petitioner, had also failed to look into this aspect of the matter. Effect of the order (Annexure P5) had not been looked into by the authorities below. It is apparent from the records that the Gram Panchayat had led no evidence in application, which was moved by the petitioner for deciding question of title. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the opinion expressed by the Courts below regarding ownership was not justified. Merely because mutation was entered in favour of the Gram Panchayat vide order dated April 24, 1964 (Annexure P4), it cannot be presumed to have become owner of the property in dispute. It is apparent from the records that the mutation was entered only keeping in view provisions of the Act without getting question of title decided from the competent authority. It is apparent from the records that the mutation was entered only keeping in view provisions of the Act without getting question of title decided from the competent authority. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner had also moved an application to adduce evidence. Even no finding has been given to dismiss the same vide the impugned order.” Above view was approved by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.15197 of 2011 titled as Labh Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others decided on 24.5.2012. When dealing with similar situation, it was observed as under: We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. A collector and the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats (exercising the powers of the Commissioner) are quasi-judicial authorities exercising quasi-judicial powers and are, therefore, required to pass well reasoned orders preceded by a perceptible process of reasoning. More often than not, the orders are perfunctory in their reasoning and devoid of any reference to pleadings much less relevant evidence. We would like to emphasis that as the Collector and the Commissioner, as substitutes for Civil Courts, they are required to pass quasi-judicial orders, after a detailed discussion of the evidence on record and preferably after framing issues. A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that crucial documents i.e. revenue record prior to 26.1.1950 have not been considered much less adverted to by the learned Commissioner. As a consequence, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, we partly allow the writ petition, set-aside the order passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats (exercising the powers of the Commissioner), Punjab, Chandigarh, and remit the matter to him for adjudication afresh and in accordance with law.” There is no application of mind in this case. In view of facts mentioned above, these writ petitions are allowed, order under challenge are set aside and the matters are remitted to the Collector to decide it afresh as per law. Both the parties be given two opportunities to produce evidence, if they so desire. Thereafter, the matters be disposed of within one year. For any interim prayer, the parties be at liberty to move an application before the Collector. Parties are directed to appear before the Collector on 17.12.2013.