Judgment

Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.

The petitioners have filed the instant petition seeking quashing of order dated 31.5.2018, Annexure P/1 passed by learned Collector and order dated 11.1.2019, Annexure P/2, passed by learned Commissioner in the title suit filed by respondent-Gram Panchayat under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1961’).

2. The respondent-Gram Panchayat, filed petition under Section 11 of the Act of 1961, for declaring Gram Panchayat, Garhi Baksha, as owner of the petition land(s) and for declaring sale deed No. 306 dated 18.6.1993, sale deed no. 265 dated 4.6.1993 and sale deed nos. 281-282 dated 11.6.1993, registered with the Sub Registrar, Bhogpur, as null and void, on the premise that the executant of the sale deeds has no right to transfer the land in favour of the petitioners. The above application was allowed vide order dated 31.5.2018 by the learned Collector concerned. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned order, the petitioners made unsuccessful challenge by filing a statutory appeal under Section 11 (2) of the Act of 1961, which was dismissed by the learned Commissioner concerned vide order dated 11.1.2019. The petitioners have now assailed both the orders before this Court on the ground that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was owner in possession of the petition land(s) as they have purchased the land in question from the original vendor, who had earlier purchased the same from the persons, who were in independent cultivating possession of the said petition land(s), as shown in the jamabandi for the year 1945-46. It is further pleaded that the Collector concerned has ignored the claim of petitioners’ qua possession on petition land(s) through their predecessor-in-interest, which was established on record prior to the year 1950 and the findings of Collector that Pritam Dass, who is shown to be in possession prior to 26.1.1950 rather had no right to sell the petition land(s), is contrary to the record by ignoring the principle that possessory right is amenable to transfer. It is further pleaded that the appellate authority has summarily dismissed the appeal, without even summoning the record and without dealing with the grounds of appeal, as raised by the petitioners.

3. Before adjudicating the legality and sustainability of the impugned orders, it is apt, at this juncture, to deal with the brief facts of the present case. The respondent-Gram Panchayat had earlier filed eviction petition under Section 7 of the Act of 1961, which was contested by the petitioners on the ground that they have purchased the petition land(s) by way of registered sale deed No. 306 dated 18.6.1993, sale deed no. 265 dated 4.6.1993 and sale deed nos. 281-282 dated 11.6.1993. Realizing that the issue of title is involved, the Collector concerned, ordered to adjourn sine-die, the eviction petition and an opportunity was given to the respondent-Gram Panchayat to get declared the ownership of the disputed land(s). This led the respondent-Gram Panchayat, Garhi Bakhsa to file a petition under Section 11 of the Act of 1961, before the learned Collector concerned. It was pleaded by the Gram Panchayat concerned that the petition land(s) is continuously shown as shamlat deh owned by village Panchayat and during the consolidation proceedings, the land was reserved for the use of Panchayat. In the jamabandis for the years 1965-66, 1975- 76, 1980-81, 1985-86, 1990-91, 1995-96, 2000-01, 2005-06, 2010-11, in the column of ownership, the Gram Panchayat is shown to be the owner, whereas, the petitioners have no concern or connection with the disputed land. Petitioners in connivance wit