Back
2014 Supreme(P&H) 1421
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Surya Kant, Jaspal Singh, JJ.
Gram Panchayat Village Ladhpur - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and Ors. - Respondent
C.W.P. No. 4245 of 2009 (O&M)
Decided On : 29-10-2014
For the Appellant :S.D. Sharma, Senior Advocate and Shagun Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Rajinder Goyal, Additional A.G.
Headnote:
Punjab Village Common Lands - Land Ownership Dispute - Punjab Village Common Lands [Regulation] Act, 1961, Section 11 - Summary: The court addressed a dispute between the Gram Panchayat and right-holders over the ownership of land. The court discussed the legislative scheme of the 1961 Act, the powers of the Gram Panchayat, and the jurisdiction of the Collector to decide land ownership disputes. The court emphasized that the Consolidation Authorities have no power to decide disputed questions of title and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred in such matters. The court also clarified the legal effect of previous court decisions and highlighted the need for the Collector to re-determine the ownership rights in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The Gram Panchayat filed a suit-cum-petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act to declare ownership of 443 kanals of land, including a disputed portion of 182 kanals 19 marlas. The right-holders claimed ownership of the disputed portion, leading to multiple rounds of litigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land measuring 260 kanals 01 marla. The impugned orders dated 11th May, 2006 and 23rd January, 2008 were quashed. The ownership dispute regarding the land measuring 182 kanals 19 marlas was directed to be re-determined by the Collector, following the settled law and disregarding unauthorized orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities.
Issues: [i] Competence of Director Consolidation to decide title disputes and order partition of the land; [ii] Legal effect of previous court decisions on the land ownership dispute; [iii] Effect of orders passed in an injunction suit on the rights or title claimed by the Gram Panchayat in the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi: The Consolidation Authorities have no power to decide disputed questions of title, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred in such matters. Orders passed by the Director Consolidation do not operate as res-judicata and do not prohibit the Gram Panchayat from approaching the jurisdictional forum for deciding a question of title. The Collector is directed to re-determine the ownership rights in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The Gram Panchayat is held to be the owner of the land measuring 260 kanals 01 marla. The impugned orders dated 11th May, 2006 and 23rd January, 2008 were quashed. The ownership dispute regarding the land measuring 182 kanals 19 marlas was directed to be re-determined by the Collector, following the settled law and disregarding unauthorized orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities.
1. Gram Panchayat of village Ladhpur, District Fatehgarh Sahib impugns the orders dated 11.05.2006 [P-11] and 23.01.2008 [P-12] passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner [Development] exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Punjab Village Common Lands [Regulation] Act, 1961. Vide the first order, the Collector has dismissed the petition of Gram Panchayat filed under Section 11 of the Act to declare it the owner of subject land measuring 266 Bighas 4 Biswas [equivalent to 443 kanals] situated within the revenue estate of village Ladhpur. Vide the second order, the Commissioner has dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the above mentioned order of the Collector. The case of the Gram Panchayat is that the land in dispute was recorded in the revenue record as "Shamlat-deh Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat' prior to the year 1956 and was consequently mutated in its favour on 05.12.1956 in accordance with Section 3 of the Punjab Village Common Lands [Regulation] Act, 1953. Since then the Gram Panchayat was consistently shown to be owner of the subject land in the Jamabandi entries up to the year 1999-2000.
2. 10 Proprietors-cum-right-holders of the village filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings [Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation] Act, 1948 [in short 1948 Act'], in the year 1994 claiming themselves to be the owners of a part of the land in dispute, i.e., to the extent measuring 182 kanals 19 marlas [110 Bighas] and sought its partition. The petition was filed almost 38 years after the consolidation had taken place in the village in the year 1950-51. It was claimed that the land in dispute was owned by Khewatdars [right-holders] of the village and it was erroneously mutated in favour of the Gram Panchayat as shamlat-deh. It was averred that the illegally entered mutation did not confer any title in favour of Gram Panchayat not it could affect the ownership rights of proprietors.
3. The petitioner - Gram Panchayat contested the claim of the proprietors and raised a specific objection re: inordinate delay of 30 to 35 years in filing of the petition.
4. The Director Consolidation, however, repelled the objection of the Gram Panchayat and held vide his order dated 22nd May, 1996 [P-2] that since in the Jamabandi for the year 1950-51, Khewat No. 86 was recorded to be ownership of "Shamlat Hasab Rasad Khewat Maqbuja" and in the column of Cultivator, proprietors were entered into its joint and separate possession, the land in dispute continued to be owned by the right-holders and not the Gram Panchayat. The mutation sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat was declared to have no effect on the rights of Khewatdars. The land was ordered to be partitioned amongst the right-holders of the village relying upon a decision of this Court reported as 1991 PLJ 46. The Director Consolidation distributed the land measuring 182 kanals 19 marlas amongst the right-holders [P-2] proportionate to their landholdings and specific Killa Numbers as per their entitlement were allotted.
5. The Gram Panchayat challenged the above stated order of the Director Consolidation before this Court in CWP No. 10626 of 1996 but it was dismissed by a Division Bench on 23.07.1996 by an order which reads "No merits. Dismissed". It may be specifically noticed at the cost of repetition that the above stated controversy pertained to land measuring 182 kanals 19 marlas out of land measuring 443 kanals.
6. The petitioner-Gram Panchayat thereafter on 02.04.1997 filed a suit-cum-petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act to declare it as the owner in possession of the entire land measuring 443 kanals including the land in dispute measuring 182 kanals 19 marlas. The right-holders-cum-proprietors of the village also filed a petition to sanction the mutation of land measuring 182 kanals 19 marlas in their favour and it appears that their application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector as well as the appellate authority. However, th
