Judgment

Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.

The petitioners have, through the instant writ petition, assailed the validity of the orders drawn on 29.11.2018 (Annexure P-11) and on 30.05.2017 (Annexure P-10), respectively by the learned Commissioner concerned and by the learned Collector concerned.

2. Since the present case has a chequered history, therefore, before proceeding to deal with the submissions of the learned counsels and before embarking upon the process of answering the questions of law, as become raised in the instant petition, it would be apposite to initially succinctly enumerate the factual backdrop of the case.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. The genesis of the present case dates back to early 1950s. As per the Jamabandi for the years 1950-1951 and 1955-1956, the total area of village Bhuna is 22334 Bighas 14 Biswas, therefrom, an area of 15648 Bighas is recorded as “shamlat deh”, area whereof includes an area of 2408 Bighas 4 Biswas thus recorded as “Banjar Qadim”. Upon enactment and coming into force of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1953”), the “shamlat deh” lands in a village came to statutorily vest in the Gram Panchayat and accordingly, a Mutation bearing No. 670, pertaining to the entire “shamlat deh” land of the revenue estate of Village Bhuna, was sanctioned on 20.6.1954 in favour of the respondent- Gram Panchayat concerned. Dissatisfied with the sanction of mutation (supra), the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners had instituted a declaratory suit before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Guhla at Cheeka (hereinafter referred to as the “Assistant Collector”), thereby claiming the nullification of mutation (supra). The foundation of the relief claimed was laid on the bedrock of the un-amended proviso to Section 2 (g)(5) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1961”), proviso whereof contemplated, that if the area of “shamlat deh”, at least to the extent of 25% of the total area of the village, does not exist in the village, then the land described as “Banjar Qadim” and used for common purposes of the village, according to revenue records, shall fall within the definition of “shamlat deh” and shall vest with the Gram Panchayat concerned. It was claimed that since the area of “shamlat deh” (15648 Bighas) was far in excess of 25% of the total revenue area of the village concerned, therefore, the area of “Banjar Qadim” (2408 Bighas 4 Biswas) does not indeed vest with the Gram Panchayat concerned by dint of un-amended proviso attached to Section 2 (g)(5) of the Act of 1961, rather it vests in the proprietors of the village concerned.

4. The Gram Panchayat concerned controverted the averments (supra), as pleaded in the suit, by contending that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and other alleged proprietors were unauthorized occupants over the disputed land, and, as such in the garb of the title suit, they were intending to grab the suit property. Moreover, the mutation (supra) was claimed to be validly sanctioned.

5. The learned Assistant Collector, vide order dated 21.03.1986, decreed the suit while holding that since the Gram Panchayat concerned already had an area of “shamlat deh” but in excess of 25% of the total area of the village, therefore, by virtue of the relevant un-amended proviso to Section 2 (g)(5) of the Act of 1961, the area measuring 2408 Bighas 4 Biswas, designated as “Banjar Qadim”, neither falls within the definition of “shamlat deh” nor vests in the Gram Panchayat concerned. The learned Assistant Collector further held that the mutation (supra) rather holds no binding effect upon the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner along with the other plaintiffs therein, given theirs being the lawful right holders and Biswedars of the village concerned.

6. The order made by the Assistant Collector on 21.03.1986 caused grievance to the Gram Panchayat concerned and led it t