2014 Supreme(P&H) 346

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
[DIVISION BENCH]
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh
LPA No. 54 of 2012 (O&M)
Gram Panchayat of Village Bajghera
v.
Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 07/05/2014}

Headnote:Village Common Land—Shamlat Deh--The land of Patti, Panna, Thola, Taraf and Banjar Qadim falling under sub-section (3) would vest in the Panchayat if it is used for the common purposes--But if the land is described in the revenue record as Shamlat Deh followed by any expressions, the same would vest in the Panchayat in terms of Section 2(g)(1) of the VCL Act.

       (A) Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, S.2(g)--Shamlat Deh--Land recorded as “Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Malgujari Mundraja Missal Hakiat” in revenue record vests in Gram Panchayat--Contention that land is Banjar Qadim and the same unless reserved and used for common purposes will not vest with the panchayat as per S.2(g)(5)--Contention rejected--Held; The two clauses operate in different fields, therefore, the land of Patti, Panna, Thola, Taraf and Banjar Qadim falling under sub-section (3) would vest in the Panchayat if it is used for the common purposes--But if the land is described in the revenue record as Shamlat Deh followed by any expressions, the same would vest in the Panchayat in terms of Section 2(g)(1) of the Act. (Para 26)

       Thus, the finding recorded by the Commissioner holding that the land does not vest with the Panchayat in terms of Section 2(g) of the Act, is patently illegal and unwarranted--The judgment in Jai Singh’s case (supra), referred to by the Commissioner pertains to Jumla Mustrka Malkan Land, which came to be vested in Panchayat consequent to the amendment in the Act by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992. The issue raised and decided in the aforesaid case has nothing in common with the issue arising in the present case--In view of the above, we find that the land in dispute is proved to be vesting with the Gram Panchayat in terms of Section 2(g)(1) of the Act and that Section 2(g)(5) of the Act has no applicability to the land in question.

       (B) Constitution of India, 1950, Art.226--Writ of Certiorari--Against order of Commissioner--Maintainability of--Revision against order of commissioner holding that land did not vest in Gram Panchayat--Panchayat has claimed writ of certiorari and also for setting aside the order--Single Judge dismissed the revision as not maintainable—Order of Single Judge set aside--Held;

       (i) Order passed the learned Single Judge is not examining the nature of the land even if it is held that the revision was not maintainable is not sustainable in law.

       (ii) The documents required to be examined were produced by the respondents herein before the Assistant Collector in proof of their title--The pure question of law is required to be examined--Therefore, on the perusal of the records, the writ Court could issue a writ, which is warranted on the facts of the case.

       (iii) The order of the learned Single Judge that there is no whisper of challenge to the orders passed by the authorities could be made a ground to decline the relief of Certiorari when the parties were aware of the controversy in respect of vesting of the land in Panchayat. (Para 36)

       (C) Constitution of India, 1950, Art.226--Writ of Certiorari--Against order of quasi Judicial Tribunal--Applicability of principles of pleadings--Held; While issuing the writ of Certiorari against the orders of the quasi judicial Tribunal, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, the pleadings are insignificant as it is the record of the subordinate authority or the Tribunal, which is to be examined to find out any error apparent on record--However, when the writ jurisdiction is exercised without any order of inferior Tribunal or authority, it will be the exercise of the original jurisdiction and the pleadings would be relevant. (Para 32)

       (D) Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, S.7--Question of title--Appeal--Assistant Collector decided the question of title--Appeal is maintainable of commissioner is final and cannot be disputed before Financial Commissioner--But if question of title is decided u/s 13-A, appeal lies commissioner and revision lies before Financial Commissioner.