The adjudicatory jurisdiction for determining the question of title for disputed land was held to be vested in the authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. As almost similar facts, besides, similar questions of law arise in all these writ petitions, i.e. CWP-10848-2007, CWP-10849-2007, CWP-7175-2007, and, CWP-10850-2007, therefore, they are being decided and disposed of by this common judgment. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP-10848-2007.

2. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for the relief of quashing of the impugned orders, which are respectively embodied in Annexures P-22, and, P-24.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. The Gram Panchayat Village Chakoki, Sub-Tehsil Dhilwan, District Kapurthala, through its Sarpanch, instituted against, one Satnam Singh, a petition under Sections 11, and, 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1961’ for short). In the petition (supra), the Gram Panchayat concerned, claimed a declaratory relief qua its being declared owner in possession of the petition land(s), besides, also claimed therein a further relief for eviction of Satnam Singh, respondent therein, from the petition land(s). The learned Collector concerned, through an order made on 25.10.2005, upon, petition bearing No.34/ADC (Dev.) of 2005, after evaluation of the entire evidence, as became adduced before it, made a conclusion, that the assertion, as made by the respondent, one Satnam Singh, that he assumed the possession of the petition land(s) prior to 1950, and/or, that he was a valid allottee of the petition land(s) from the custodian concerned, was but a pretextual or a false plea raised by above Satnam Singh. Contrarily, the learned Collector concerned, made a conclusion, that the respondent, one Satnam Singh, had taken the petition land(s) on lease, but, after expiry of the tenure of the lease, especially when he did not hand over the vacant possession of the petition land(s) to the Gram Panchayat concerned, thus became amenable to hand over the vacant possession thereof, to the Gram Panchayat concerned. Obviously, the learned Collector concerned, declared the Gram Panchayat to be a valid owner of the petition land(s).

4. However, the respondent in the petition (supra), one Satnam Singh, became aggrieved from the decision, as enclosed in Annexure P-22, and, was led to institute thereagainst, an appeal bearing No.182 of 2005, before the Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh. The above apposite statutory appeal was decided through an order made thereon, on 07.06.2006, and, which becomes enclosed in Annexure P-24. A reading of Annexure P-24 discloses, that in its operative part, the learned appellate authority concerned, after dismissing the apposite statutory appeal, rather proceeded to affirm the order, as became initially rendered by the learned Collector concerned, whereby, the latter allowed the petition (supra), as became preferred before it, by the petitioner therein, i.e. Gram Panchayat concerned.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has made an argument, that both the statutory authorities below, making a concurrent conclusion that the petitioner herein, is a Chakotedar of the petition land(s), is a misplaced conclusion. He submits that, since as revealed by Annexure P-12, in a lis, inter se the Gram Panchayat V/s Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, the hereinafter extracted directions were made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, he argues, that the jurisdiction to decide the question of title vested not in the authorities contemplated in the Act of 1961, but, the relevant jurisdiction vested in the authorities contemplated in The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1948’ for short).

“We have heard ld. Counsel for the parties. The Director (Consolidation) has remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer as early as on 4th June, 1996. These special leave petitions have put that order in issue. Ld.