Back
2003 Supreme(P&H) 702
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
Gram Panchayat
Versus
Joint Development Commissioner (Ird) Panchayats
Civil Writ Petition No. 15481 of 1997,
Decided On : MAY 14, 2003
Continuous possession prior to the Act's enforcement is required to claim ownership under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
Headnote:
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act - Land Ownership Dispute - Section 11 - 1954-55, 1961 - The court discussed the ownership of land under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, and the evidence required to prove possession and ownership. It also referenced relevant legal provisions and court decisions to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The Gram Panchayat filed a writ petition challenging an order allowing an appeal by an individual claiming ownership of land under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The individual claimed continuous possession of the land prior to the Act's enforcement, while the Gram Panchayat asserted ownership based on revenue records and lease agreements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the individual failed to prove continuous possession prior to the Act's enforcement and that possession after a lease period is deemed unauthorized. It also noted that the change of ownership in favor of the Gram Panchayat was not challenged and that the land was used for common village purposes.
Issues: Dispute over land ownership under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, based on possession, revenue records, and lease agreements.
Ratio Decidendi: Continuous possession prior to the Act's enforcement is required to claim ownership. Possession after a lease period is unauthorized. Change of ownership unchallenged and land used for common village purposes.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the order allowing the individual's appeal and restoring the order dismissing the individual's application.
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. Gram Panchayat, Village Mardanheri (now bifurcated in two Gram Panchayats i.e., Gram Panchayat Mardaheri and Gram Panchayat, village Dera Bajigar), filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 05.06.1997 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Joint Development Commissioner, IRD, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner) (respondent No. 1 herein), vide which the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 against the order of dismissal of application filed by him under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was allowed and the order of the Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Patiala (exercising the Powers of Collector) (respondent No. 2 herein) dated 01.10.1996 was set aside.
2. On 23.5.1994, respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 11 of the Act before respondent No. 2 for declaring him owner of the land measuring 31 kanals 19 marlas situated in village Mardaheri as the said land does not fall under the definition of shamlat deh as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act and the same does not vest in the Gram Panchayat under Section 4 of the Act. Respondent No. 3 pleaded that he had been in continuous possession of the land in question 12 years prior to the enforcement of the Act. Earlier, this land was Banjar Qadim and was never used for any common purpose of the village, therefore, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat.
3. The petitioner Gram Panchayat contested the aforesaid application. It was pleaded by it that the land in question is the shamlat deh and the same is owned by it as per the revenue record. It was also pleaded that respondent No. 3 was not in possession of this land 12 years prior to the coming into force of the Act. Actually, he took the land in question on lease from the Gram Panchayat and did not vacate the same after the expiry of lease period. Therefore, possession of respondent No. 3 is wholly illegal and unauthorised. It was also pleaded that since respondent No. 3 took the disputed land on lease from the Gram Panchayat, therefore, he is not entitled to challenge its ownership and the application filed by him under Section 11 of the Act for declaring him owner was not maintainable.
4. Respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 01.10.1996 (Annexure P-1) dismissed the aforesaid application filed by respondent No. 3 while observing as under:-
"After hearing the arguments of counsel for both parties, and perusing the documents brought on record, I have come to the conclusion that the applicant has failed to prove his possession prior to 26.1.1950 continuously. The applicant took this land on Chakota from Panchayat for year 1992-93 as per copy register Patta Auction Shamilat Exhibit R-1 and in the year 1993-94, Exhibit R-3 and, as such, he has no right to challenge the ownership of the Gram Panchayat in respect of this land as is clear from the judgment reported in (1987)89 P.L.R. Page 239 and 1983(1) I.L.R. 121 rendered by Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court. According to the revenue record produced the land is shamlat which is used for common purposes of the village. On the basis of these facts, the application of the applicant is rejected. The land in question is declared the ownership of the Gram Panchayat.
5. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, respondent No. 3 filed appeal before respondent No. 1, which was allowed vide order dated 05.06.1997 (Annexure P-2) by observing as under:
"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the case of the appellant stands fully proved by way of documents mentioned in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. The revenue documents from 1949-50 to date are in his favour. One stray entry of lease having been made to one Balauchi Ram will not change the nature of the land, This auction itself does not stand proved. The receipt and proceedings are not exhi
