The conclusiveness of entries in revenue records and the requirement for providing cogent evidence to challenge their efficacy.

JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The present petitioner becomes aggrieved from Annexure P, whereby the Competent Appellate Authority after allowing appeal No. 2 of 1995, as became preferred before him, by the Gram Panchayat Mangewal, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala against Annexure P-2, thus proceeded to after accepting the Gram Panchayat’s appeal, rather annul Annexure P-2, whereby the learned Collector concerned, had assigned the espoused declaratory relief, to the present petitioner.

2. Before proceeding to dwell upon, and, also before proceeding to make an adjudication with respect to the validity of the drawing of impugned Annexure P-3, it is deemed imperative to refer to the genesis of the litigation which erupted amongst the contesting litigants before this Court.

3. In that regard, it is important to refer to a decision made by this Court, on 01.05.2013, respectively upon CWP-1410-1987 and, upon CWP-15771-1995. Both the said writ petitions were respectively instituted by the Gram Panchayat concerned, and, by the present petitioner.

4. The challenge as made by the present petitioner, in the above writ petition, related to the validity of an affirmative order, as became passed by the learned Collector concerned, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 4, 5 and 7 of The Punjab Public Premises and Land Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1973’). The said order was drawn on 27.05.1994. The challenge in appeal as became made there-against, but also not yield any successful result. Consequently, through the present petitioner instituting CWP-15771-1995, he made a challenge to the above said orders. Reiteratedly the said challenge failed.

5. On the other hand, this Court while making an adjudication, upon the CWP-1410-1987, as became preferred before this Court, by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned, thus annulled, and, set aside the order, as became rendered by the Competent Authority contemplated, under Section 42 of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1948’) whereby the said Authority proceeded to re-partition or re-distribute the disputed lands, even after the said disputed lands had earlier been assigned to the Gram Panchayat concerned, thus for the village common purpose.

6. Nonetheless, observations exist in paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 of the common verdict passed on the writ petitions (supra), observations whereof are extracted hereinafter.

“13. During pendency of these writ petition, Zail Singh filed a petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, before the Collector, praying for a declaration that the land, in dispute, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The Collector allowed the petition but in an appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat, before the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD), Punjab, exercising powers of ‘Commissioner’ (the appellate authority)under the 1961 Act, this order has been set aside on 11.1.1996 by holding that the land in dispute vests in the Gram Panchayat.

14. The question of title having been decided, in favour of the Gram Panchayat, by the Joint Director, Panchayats, in his order passed under Section 1(2) of the 1961 Act, the order passed by the Director, Consolidation, even otherwise does not survive.”

7. A reading of the observations (supra), but make speakings, that since the present petitioner had instituted a declaratory suit under Section 11 of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’), wherein a declaratory relief of assignment of title to the disputed lands rather was claimed by the present petitioner, besides when the said relief, though became granted to the present petitioner, thus by the learned Collector concerned, yet further it is also manifested therein, that the Appellate Authority proceeded to annul the said declaratory decree passed by the learned Collector concerned. Therefore, as stated (supr