SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh, S. Saghir Ahmad
GRAM PANCHAYAT, NURPUR, APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeal No. 2066 of 1996,
decided on November 7, 1996.
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 - Sections 11 and 13 - Owners and proprietors of land - claim right title interest in any land vested deemed - Before Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings Punjabwas whether land in dispute was hamlet land and as such owned by Gram Panchayat or it was owned by proprietors of village - Additional Director came to conclusions that respondents were owners and proprietors land - Gram Panchayat challenged order of Additional Director by way petition before High Court - Petition was dismissed in lifetime – Held, Additional Director interpreted entries to mean that respondents were in continuous possession of land in dispute from onwards and on that assumption he came to conclusion that despite entry in column of ownership land was not land and as such did not vest in Gram Panchayat - High Court upheld finding by dismissing petition in lamina - Court are of view that Additional Director Consolidation had no authority to go into question whether land in dispute was or not - This is question which could only be decided by authorities Regulation Act –Court there for allow appeal set aside impugned order of Additional Director Consolidation and also order High Court and send matter before Collector for decision in accordance with law Regulation Act - Court make it clear that Collector shall decide matter afresh in accordance with law irrespective orders passed by Consolidation authorities in this respect - Court direct Collector to decide matter within months of receipt of this order – Order accordingly
ORDER
1. The question before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, was whether the land in dispute was a "shamlat deh" land and as such owned by the Gram Panchayat or it was owned by the proprietors of the village. The Additional Director came to the conclusions that the respondents were the owners and proprietors of the land. The Gram Panchayat challenged the order of the Additional Director by way of a writ petition before the High Court. The petition was dismissed in lifetime.
2. Sections 11 and 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (the Regulation Act) are as under :
"11. Decision of claims of rights, title or interest in shamlat deh. - 1) Any person claiming right, title or interest in any land vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat under this Act, or claiming that any land has not so vested in a Panchayat, may submit to the Collector, within such time as may be prescribed, a statement of his claim in writing and signed and verified in the prescribed manner and the Collector shall have jurisdiction to decide such claim in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) Any person or a Panchayat aggrieved by an order of the Collector made under sub-section (1), may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Commissioner in such form and manner as may be prescribed and the Commissioner may after hearing the appeal, confirm, vary or reverse the order appealed from and may pass such order as he deems fit. Shamlat deh excluding abadi deh.
13. Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts. - No civil court shall have jurisdiction -
(a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not shamlat deh vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat under this Act; or
(b) to question the legality of any action taken by the Commissioner or the Collector or the Panchayat under this Act; or
(c) in respect of any matter which the Commissioner or the Collector is empowered by or under this Act to determine."
3. It is not disputed that the Jamabandi entries for the year 1944-45 - prior to the Consolidation Act read as "Shamlat Deh", "Hasab Rasat Khewat" and in the cultivation column, the entry is "Maqbooza Malkan".
4. The Additional Director interpreted the entries to mean that the respondents were in continuous possession of the land in dispute from 1944-45 onwards and on that assumption, he came to the conclusion that despite the entry in the column of ownership, the land was not shamlat deh land and as such did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The High Court upheld the finding by dismissing the writ petition in limine.
5. We are of the view that the Additional Director, Consolidation, had no authority to go into the question whether the land in dispute was shamlat deh or not. This is a question which could only be decided by the authorities under the Regulation Act. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Additional Director, Consolidation and also the order of the High Court and send the matter before the Collector, Kapurthala, for decision in accordance with law under the Regulation Act. We make it clear that the Collector shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law irrespective of the orders passed by the Consolidation authorities in this respect. We direct the Collector to decide the matter within 2 months of the receipt of this order.
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.