Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2060 (PNJ)

Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab

2015-11-07

JASPAL SINGH, SURYA KANT

body2015
JUDGMENT Mr. Jaspal Singh, J.: - This is a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside order dated April 11, 2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.1 and order dated December 24, 2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the instant petition are that petitioners filed petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) seeking declaration that they are owners in continuous possession of the land, fully detailed and described by way of khasra numbers in the head note of petition, situated at village Bijli Nangal, Sub Tehsil Dhilwan, District Kapurthala as per jamabandi for the year 2002-03 and that Gram Panchayat has no right, title or interest in the land in dispute which has been shown as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat or ‘Panchayat Deh’ in the revenue record prior to consolidation and in the Misal Hakiat in columns of ownership as well as cultivation. The said entries are liable to be changed showing the petitioners as owners as they being the proprietors of the village have got right of ownership being in possession of their share in the land which has been recorded as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat. Similarly, their possession is also to be incorporated in the revenue record even prior to January 26, 1950 as well as in the jamabandies prepared subsequent thereto. 3. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, petitioners filed appeal under Section 11(2) of the Act before respondent No.1 – Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner) but that appeal has been dismissed vide order dated April 11, 2012 (Annexure P-5) which necessitated the filing of instant petition. 4. While assailing impugned order dated December 24, 2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Collector, qua the findings of ownership of Gram Panchayat, as well as order dated April 11, 2012 (Annexure P- 5) passed by the Commissioner, it has been ebulliently argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that both the authorities have misappreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence i.e. revenue record which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Infact, the documentary evidence available on file, especially, copy of jamabandi (Annexure P-10) for the year 2000-01 (Bikrami Samvat) corresponding to the year 1944-45 (AD) as well as copy of jamabandi (Annexure P- 11/P-12) for the year 2007-08 (Bikrami Samvat) corresponding to the year 1951-52 (AD) clearly depicts the petitioners to be in cultivating possession of separate khasra numbers individually. Since the petitioners are recorded to be in cultivating possession in their individual capacity of the land which is undoubtedly a part of Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat much prior to the year 1950 and even subsequent thereto, they deserve to be declared owners as per their share. The findings recorded by the Commissioner that petitioners are not in possession or that the land in question is shamlat deh and vests in the Gram Panchayat are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The same are thus liable to be reversed. In view of reversal of findings, petition preferred by the petitioners under Section 11 of the Act deserves to be allowed in toto by way of acceptance of the instant petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 – Gram Panchayat has strongly supported the impugned orders. Infact, there is no record produced by the petitioners showing their individual cultivating possession over the property in suit on or prior to January 26, 1950. Even in the jamabandies for the year 1944-45 as well as 1951-52 which have been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, do not support the case of the petitioners. A perusal of the aforesaid documents simply depict the petitioners to be in possession as Mujara Gair Marusi (i.e. tenant at will) and not in the capacity as a co-sharer or in individual capacity of the land in suit. Infact, suit land has been recorded to be the ownership of Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat in the above referred jamabandies. Thereafter, Panchayat Deh has been recorded in the column of ownership in all the jamabandies prepared after 1972-73. Meaning thereby that Gram Panchayat is recorded as owner even prior to January 26, 1950 in all the jamabandies placed on record by the parties. The individual cultivating possession of any of the petitioners is nowhere reflected in the aforesaid revenue record. The instant petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 6. Meaning thereby that Gram Panchayat is recorded as owner even prior to January 26, 1950 in all the jamabandies placed on record by the parties. The individual cultivating possession of any of the petitioners is nowhere reflected in the aforesaid revenue record. The instant petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 6. After bestowing due consideration to the aforesaid rival submissions, scanning of the documents available on file and scrutinizing the impugned order(s), we are of the considered view that the same do not call for any interference by this Court. 7. A glance at the entries appearing in jamabandi (Annexure P-10) for the year 2000-01 (Bikrami Samvat) corresponding to the calendar year 1944-45 (AD) transpires that in the column of ownership, the words “Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat” are appearing whereas in the column of cultivation, “Sadhu Singh etc.” have been recorded as Mujara Gair Marusi. Similarly, in the entries appearing in subsequent jamabandi (Annexure P-11/P-12) for the year 2007-08 (Bikrami Samvat) corresponding to the year 1951-52 (AD), in the column of ownership, the words “Panchayat Deh” are appearing whereas in the column of cultivation, the words “Mujara Gair Marusi” find mentioned. In the other subsequent jamabandies which relate to the year 1972-73 to 2002-03, “Panchayat Deh” i.e. Gram Panchayat is recorded to be the owner of land in suit. The petitioners have nowhere been shown to be in individual cultivating continuous possession of the land in question either prior to January 26, 1950 or thereafter. The entries appearing in the various jamabandies available on the file do not support the version of the petitioners. There is also nothing on the record to suggest that petitioners are either proprietors of the village or that they are in possession of any part of the suit property in that capacity at any point of time even prior to January 26, 1950 or subsequent thereto. The Commissioner has, thus, rightly concluded that the Gram Panchayat is owner of the suit property and the petitioners have no right or claim thereto. The impugned orders dated December 24, 2009 and April 11, 2012 (Annexure P-4 and P-5, respectively) do not call for interference as the same are absolutely in consonance with the evidence as well as legal proposition applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 8. The impugned orders dated December 24, 2009 and April 11, 2012 (Annexure P-4 and P-5, respectively) do not call for interference as the same are absolutely in consonance with the evidence as well as legal proposition applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 8. In view of discussion made above, we do not find any merit in the instant petition. As such, the same is dismissed.