Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 1339
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Gram Panchayat Hardosaran - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab And Others - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 15227 of 2020
Decided On : 30-09-2020
R.S. Manhas, Advocate, Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the availability of alternative remedies under the law for resolving land disputes.
Headnote:
Land Dispute - Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 - Section 11 - Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 - [Section 11 of the 1961 Act, Section 36 of the 1887 Act] - The court emphasized the availability of alternative remedies under Section 11 of the 1961 Act and Section 36 of the 1887 Act for resolving the land dispute, and held that the writ petitioner should pursue these remedies. The court also noted the lack of details in the writ petition and the previous dismissal of a review application by the Gram Panchayat.
Fact of the Case:
The Gram Panchayat filed a writ petition challenging the order to transfer their land and make changes to the revenue record. The court noted the availability of alternative remedies under the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 and the lack of details in the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petitioner had alternative remedies available under the law and should pursue those remedies. It also noted the lack of details in the writ petition and the dismissal of a review application by the Gram Panchayat.
Issues: The issues involved the transfer of land, changes to revenue records, and the availability of alternative remedies under the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the writ petitioner should pursue alternative remedies available under Section 11 of the 1961 Act and Section 36 of the 1887 Act. It also emphasized the lack of details in the writ petition and the previous dismissal of a review application by the Gram Panchayat.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the court advised the writ petitioner to pursue alternative remedies available under the law.
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. - This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by Gram Panchayat through Hardosran, Block Dhar Kalan, District Pathankot, with the following substantive prayers:-
"I) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside the letter dated 01.07.2020 (Annexure P-11) vide the respondents have passed an order to transfer the land of the petitioner and others and further ordered to make the changes revenue record in the column of ownership and cultivation by way of an administrative letter which is against the law and no provision as provided under the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 has been complied with.
II) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction, as may be deemed it in the facts and circumstances of the present case".
2. At the outset, it is important to note that certain writ petitions, filed by the residents of different villages, questioning the proposed action of the State i.e., to correct the revenue record by entering mutation in favour of the Forest Department, have already been decided by a detailed judgment, on 11.02.2014 in "Rameshwar Nath and Others v. State of Punjab and Others" Civil Writ Petition No. 8706 of 1988 & other connected cases. In the aforesaid detailed judgment, the Court, after examining various issues, have decided that the property including the trees, vest in the State and are a part of the Forest. The writ petitioner, Gram Panchayat, has apart from other issues, challenged the correctness of the judgment passed by the High Court by way of the present writ petition.
3. It is important to note that the writ petitioner-Gram Panchayat, has an equally efficacious remedy of filing a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1961 Act"):-
"11. Decision of claims of right, title or interest in Shamilatdeh.-
(1) Any person claiming right, title or interest in any land, vested or deemed to have been vested in a panchayat under this Act or clamming that any land has not so vested in a Panchayat, may submit to the Collector, within such time, as may be prescribed, a statement of his claim in writing and signed and verified in the prescribed manner and the Collector shall have jurisdiction to decide such claim in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) Any person or a Panchayat aggrieved by an order of the Collector made under sub- section (1) may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Commissioner in such form as manner as may be prescribed and the Commissioner may after hearing the appeal, confirm, vary or reverse the order appealed from and may pass such as he deems fit".
4. It is apparent from the reading of Section 11 of the 1961 Act that the Collector has the jurisdiction to decide on the right, title or interest in the shamlat deh land. The petition under Section 11 is in the nature of a suit which is to be decided after granting an opportunity of filing, pleadings, leading evidence and after hearing arguments. Sub Section (2) makes a provision for filing an appeal against the order passed by the Collector.
5. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the writ petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy and hence, this Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction.
6. It is pertinent to note that the writ petitioner, apart from doubting the correctness of the judgment passed by the High Court on 11.02.2014, in Rameshwar Nath (supra), has also claimed that the action of the State in sanctioning mutation in favour of the forest department is illegal. In this regard, it will be noted that mutations of the land are changed as per Chapter IV of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1887 Act"). Under Section 36 of the 1887 Act, the procedure for determination of disputes with respect to mutation, has been enumerated. Still further, once the order is passed sanctio
