The court emphasized the importance of proving cultivating possession for exemption from vestment in the Panchayat under Section 4(3)(ii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1. The petitioners by placing reliance upon the copy of jamabanadi for the year 1939-40 (Annexure P-1) wherein in the column No.4 i.e. appertaining to ownership “Shamlat Deh” is recorded and in the column of cultivation, the name of the father of the petitioners is recorded as “gair dakhilkar”, asserted that they are in cultivating possession of Shamlat Deh for more than 12 years immediately preceding the commencement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') without payment of charges not exceeding the land revenue and cess payable thereto. Therefore, the petition land is saved from vestment in the Panchayat.

2. Before we examine the legality of above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is apt to examine the facts in detail as the case has chequered history.

3. The petitioners have filed a suit before respondent No.2 under Section 11 of the Act for a declaration to the effect that the petitioners are owners in possession of the land measuring 23 kanals and 6 marlas comprised in Khewat No.130 Khatauni No. 103, Rect. No. 21, Killa No.25(8-0), Rect. No.22, Killa No. 21/2 (5-15), Rect. No.27, Killa No.1 (8-0), Rect. No. 28, Killa No.5/1 (1-11), situated in the revenue estate of village Chopra, Hadbast No. 609, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. That suit was dismissed vide order dated 1.6.2006. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners filed an appeal before Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner). However, that appeal was also dismissed by the learned Commissioner vide order dated 14.3.2006 observing that the petitioners failed to prove their possession on the disputed land for more than 12 years prior to 1961. Both the orders passed by the authorities below were successfully challenged by filing CWP No.13901 of 2008 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 19.3.2010 set-aside both orders (Supra) and remanded the case back to Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat-cum-Collector, Panchayat Land, Jalandhar/Amritsar to decide the petition afresh by passing speaking orders.

4. Thereafter, the learned Deputy Director Rural Development and Panchayat-cum-Collector, Panchayat Land, Jalandhar/Amritsar after recording evidence led by both the parties dismissed the suit vide impugned order dated 9.9.2010 (Annexure P-6). The petitioners challenged the abovesaid order by preferring statutory appeal before the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab. However, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 20.3.2015 (Annexure P-16). Aggrieved by the order dated 9.9.2010 (Annexure P-6) and 20.3.2015 (Annexure P-16), the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the land measuring 23 kanals and 6 marls was in cultivating possession of the ancestors of the petitioners. The entry of Panchayat Deh in the column of ownership is wrong and illegal. Initially, their father, namely, Jetha Singh was in possession of land measuring 9 kanals 17 marlas. For this, he referred to jamabandi for the year 1939-40 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, the consolidation proceedings were initiated in the years 1956-57 and during consolidation proceedings also, their father was in possession and the entry in this regard was made in khatauni istemal. His share was also mentioned in naksha hakdarwar and after the consolidation, khatauni pamaish was prepared and his father remained in possession of the disputed land. After the consolidation, he was allotted 23 kanals and 6 marlas of land as evident from the khatauni pamaish. He further submitted that Jetha Singh has been in possession over the disputed land before 29.6.1950. Therefore, the disputed land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat in view of the provisions of Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners further pl