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

2015 Supreme(P&H) 1393

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rajive Bhalla and Amol Rattan Singh, JJ.
Malkiat Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab And Others - Respondents
CWP No. 4117 of 2015
Decided On : 29.5.2015.

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Ajaivir Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Munisha Gandhi, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
For the Respondent No. 4:Dr. Surya Parkash and V.K. Sandhir, Advocates.

The main legal point established is that Section 11 of the 1961 Act confers an independent right to seek adjudication of rights in Shamilat Deh, and the jurisdiction of the Director to set aside the Collector's order and direct separate decisions for the petitions.

Headnote:

Writ of Certiorari - Jurisdiction of Director under Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - Section 11

Fact of the Case:

The dispute involved land in a village, with conflicting claims by the petitioners and the Gram Panchayat regarding its status as Shamilat Deh. The Collector ordered the petitions to be clubbed and decided together, but the Director set aside this order and directed separate decisions for each petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Director's order to decide the petitions separately was without jurisdiction, as the Collector's order was not under challenge before him. It directed the Deputy Director to examine each petition separately, with the possibility of clubbing petitions with common issues after separate evidence is led.

Issues: The main issue was the jurisdiction of the Director to set aside the Collector's order and direct separate decisions for the petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 11 of the 1961 Act confers an independent right to seek adjudication of rights in Shamilat Deh, and the mere fact that the land and rights claimed may be similar does not justify clubbing the petitions. It emphasized the need for separate decisions and evidence for each petition.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Deputy Director to examine each petition separately, with the possibility of clubbing petitions with common issues after separate evidence is led.

JUDGMENT :

Rajive Bhalla, J.

The petitioners prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari, setting aside order dated 24.09.2014 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab (exercising power under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "1961 Act").

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and a large number of proprietors have filed separate petitions, under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, either personally or through general power of attorney holders or by successors-in-interests or by persons who have purchased the land from erstwhile proprietors or general power of attorney holders. The Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, had no jurisdiction while considering the petition for transfer of these petitions to set aside an order passed by the Collector, clubbing more than 400 cases and directing that each case be decided separately by framing separate issues, particularly when the transfer petition had already been rendered infructuous by transfer of the petitions to another officer.

3. Counsel for the State of Punjab submits that as a common issue arises for consideration, namely whether the land is included in the Shamilat Deh of the village, the petitions may be clubbed and decided by a common order.

4. Counsel for the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 4) submits that as separate petitions have been filed, claiming different rights in the land, in dispute, the petitions cannot be clubbed. The order passed by the Commissioner, directing that cases be decided by framing separate issues and recording separate evidence etc. is, therefore, legal and valid and may be affirmed.

5. Counsel for Jagdish Rai Jund, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mullanpur Garib Dass, submits that by clubbing the petitions, the Collector had passed an illegal order compelling the Gram Panchayat to file a writ petition which was disposed of by directing the Director to decide the application for transfer expeditiously. The Director has rightly issued a direction to decide the cases separately by framing separate issues etc.

6. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

7. The land, in dispute, is situated in village Mullanpur Garib Dass, which abuts the city of Chandigarh. The land, in dispute, is, therefore, prime property that has been sold many times over by way of registered sale deeds, general power of attorneys and is also said to have vested in erstwhile proprietors of the Shamilat Deh, on the basis of orders passed by Tribunals and Courts. The petitioner and various other persons have filed petitions under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, claiming that the land, in dispute, is excluded from the Shamilat Deh of the village. The Gram Panchayat, on the other hand, has asserted, that the land, in dispute, is the Shamilat Deh of the village. The Collector, exercising power under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, ordered that all the petitions be clubbed and decided together but by framing separate issues.

8. The Gram Panchayat filed a petition for transfer but during pendency of the transfer petition, the petitions were transferred to another officer thereby rendering the transfer petition infructuous. The Director, however, unmindful of the fact that the order passed by the Collector, clubbing the petitions was not under challenge before him, set aside the order passed by the Collector and directed that petitions filed under Section 11 of the Act, shall be decided separately. As the order passed by the Collector was not under challenge before the Director, his order directing that petitions under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, shall be decided by separate orders, is undoubtedly without jurisdiction. Section 11 of the 1961 Act, confers an independent right upon any person who alleges any right, title or interest in the Shamilat Deh of a village to seek adjudication of this right by filing a petition under Section 11 of the 196




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
whatsapp-icon Back to top