SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(P&H) 1499

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rajive Bhalla, Rekha Mittal, JJ.
Babu Singh (since deceased) through his legal representatives - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No.7324 of 2009
Decided On : 03-04-2013

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.K. Pipat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manoj Pundhir, Advocate.
For the Respondents Nos.1 to 3: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
For the Respondent No.4:Mr. R.L.Sharma, Advocate.

The interpretation of Section 2(g)(3) and Section 2(g)(v) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, and the reliance on revenue records and 'Wajib-ul-Arz' entries to establish ownership and common use of village land.

Headnote:

Punjab Village Common Lands - Ownership Dispute - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - Section 2(g)(3) - Section 2(g)(v)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to set aside orders passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The dispute revolved around the ownership of village land and the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the land in dispute was 'Shamilat Deh' and vested in the Gram Panchayat based on the revenue records and 'Wajib-ul-Arz' entries, as per Section 2(g)(3) of the 1961 Act. The court also held that the Gram Panchayat had the right to assert its ownership despite withdrawing a previous petition.

Issues: Ownership of village land, jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat, interpretation of Section 2(g)(3) and Section 2(g)(v) of the 1961 Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the revenue records and 'Wajib-ul-Arz' entries to establish the common use of the land, as per Section 2(g)(3) of the 1961 Act. The court also held that the Gram Panchayat's withdrawal of a previous petition did not preclude it from asserting its ownership rights.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the ownership of the land in favor of the Gram Panchayat.

Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J.: -

The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari setting aside orders dated 29.03.2004 (Annexure P-3), 27.04.2005(Annexure P-6) and 05.07.2006 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner(D), exercising the powers of ‘Collector’ and the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, respectively, exercising the powers of ‘Commissioner’, under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1961 Act’).

2. The proprietors of village Balamgarh, created a Cooperative Society, by the name of Balamgarh Coop. Choe Reclamation Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’), on 30.05.1947. The petitioner (since deceased) was President of the Society. The members of the Society claim that they had 1/3rd share in Patti Albela, 1/3rd share in Patti Hushail and 1/3rd share in Patti Gulab, out of land situated in Khewat/Khatauni No.414/456, as recorded in jamabandi for the year 1973-74. The landowners addressed a letter, in 1947, to the Collector, Ambala, requesting that the forest existing on the land, should be managed on their behalf, by the Punjab Government, as a protected forest. A notification was consequently issued under Section 20(b) of the Indian Forest Act and remained in force till it finally expired in December, 1997. Aggrieved by transfer of management of the land, in dispute, to the Forest Department, the Gram Panchayat filed an application, under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, on 21.09.1977, before the Collector, Roopnagar, asserting its ownership and challenging the legality of notification dated 27.12.1972. The petitioner/proprietors filed a reply that notification issued by the State of Punjab is in accordance with law and as the land belongs to three Pattis, with, 1/3rd share each, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat.

3. The District Development and Panchayat Officer, exercising power of “Collector”, under the 1961 Act, allowed the petition by passing an ex-parte order, dated 20.07.1984, holding that as the Gram Panchayat is owner of the land, in dispute, the Society has no right, title or interest, therein. The Society filed an appeal before the Joint Director Panchayats, which was dismissed. The Society, thereafter, filed Civil Writ Petition No.298 of 1985, which was allowed, vide order dated 11.08.1987, by holding that the Collector and the Commissioner, have no jurisdiction to pronounce upon the legality of notification, issued under the Indian Forest Act and to, consequently, determine the rights of parties. The orders, passed by the District Development and Panchayats Officer and the Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, exercising powers under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, were set aside and the matter was remitted to the District Development and Panchayats Officercum- Collector, Roopnagar, for deciding the matter afresh.

4. The parties put in appearance before the Collector, Roopnagar, but during pendency of proceedings, another petition came to be filed, under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, by one Pritam, before the Collector, claiming ownership of land bearing Khewat/Khatauni No.416/481, 416/482, 416/483, 41/484, 416/501, 416/520, 416/530, 416/532, situated in village Balamgarh. The petition was decided in favour of the Gram Panchayat on 06.03.1988. The Gram Panchayat, therefore, withdrew its petition, that it had filed under Section 11 of the 1961 Act.

5. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed an application for change of the mutation. The Collector, vide order dated 09.01.1995, held that as orders passed by the District Development and Panchayats Officer and the Joint Director, Panchayats, have been set aside, by the High Court, mutation sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat on the basis of these orders is set aside. The Gram Panchayat filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, which was dismissed, on 29.01.1996. The Gram Panchayat filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner (Reve





































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top