The court emphasized the importance of evidence in supporting ownership claims and highlighted the significance of entries in official records. The non-production of a relevant decree was also detrimental to the petitioners' case.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Factual Background

1. The forefathers of the petitioners were in possession, as right holders/cultivators, of the petition land bearing Khasra Nos. 706, 717, 803, situated in village Mavi Sapan. The above fact is depicted in the Jamabandi, qua the petition land, as becomes drawn for the years 1951-52 and 1955-56. The petition land thereins is described as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Jar Khewat. The forefathers of the petitioners were allegedly continuing in possession thereof, as revealed in the subsequent thereto jamabandis, and, their possession thereons was allegedly not disturbed at any point of time. Thereafter, Bachan Singh, forefather of petitioners filed a civil suit before the learned civil Court, which was decreed in his favour on 18.02.1965. On the basis of the said decree of civil Court, the forefather of the petitioners were shown to be owner of the land in dispute hence in the subsequent revenue record, as carried in jamabandis Annexure P-7 to Annexure P-13.

Petition filed by the Gram Panchayat

2. The Gram Panchayat Mavi Sapan, through its Sarpanch one Taranjit Kaur instituted a petition on 01.06.1981 against the respondents/forefathers of the petitioners claiming therein ownership qua the petition land. The above petition was instituted under the provisions of Sections 11 and 7 of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter for short call 'the Act'). The learned Collector concerned through an order recorded on 26.08.1983, and, as becomes embodied in Annexure P-14, proceeded to allow the said petition.

3. However, the aggrieved therefrom one Bachan Singh and Ujaggar Singh, who are forefathers of the petitioners preferred an appeal thereagainst before the learned Appellate Authority concerned. The learned Appellate Authority concerned through an order of 09.02.1988, as becomes embodied in Annexure P-15, dismissed the appeal of the appellants/petitioners herein.

Writ Petition before this High Court.

4. Being dissatisfied by the orders passed by the authorities below, the forefathers of the petitioners Bachan Singh and Ujaggar Singh filed/instituted CWP No. 5015 of 1988, titled as 'Bachan Singh and another Vs. Joint Director and others' hence before this Court. After hearing both the parties, this Court, through its order made on 26.11.2010, remanded the lis to the Appellate Authority concerned, to decide afresh, the appeal, but in accordance with law, and, after recording a finding, whether the decree of 18.02.1965 did become obtained by collusion or fraud between the decree holder and the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The parties concerned were also given an opportunity to lead additional evidence in support of their respective pleas.

5. However, during pendency of the litigation, Bachan Singh and Ujjagar Singh died, therefore the present petitioners No. 1 to 8 were brought on record as legal heirs of Bachan Singh, whereas, petitioners No. 9 and 10 were brought on record as legal heirs of Ujaggar Singh.

Verdict passed by the Remandee Court/Appellate Authority.

6. Through an order, as comprised in Annexure P-17, the learned Remandee Court, after giving an opportunity to all the litigants concerned, and, also after perusing all the relevant records, rather dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants/petitioners herein.

7. The legal heirs of Bachan Singh and Ujaggar Singh, the petitioners herein become aggrieved from the order made by the Appellate Authority concerned, as becomes embodied in Annexure P17. Resultantly they constitute thereagainst the instant petition before this Court.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that since in an earlier lis bearing No. CWP No. 5015 of 1988, this Court had thereins on 26.11.2010, made a decision, as comprised in Annexure P-16, wherethrough the land owners concerned were permitted, to lead additional evidence qua the judgment and decree of 18.02.1965,