Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, Lalit Batra, JJ.
Gram Panchayat Bijalpur – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CWP No. 10015 of 2023
Decided On : 25-01-2024
Shamlat Deh - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - Section 11, Section 2(g) - The court discussed the ownership of land in dispute, the application of the principle of res judicata, and the finality of previous proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, 1961. The court found that the claim raised by the petitioner was barred by the principle of res judicata as the ownership of the land had already been decided in earlier proceedings, and therefore, the orders dismissing the petitioner's claim did not call for any interference.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Gram Panchayat, sought to challenge orders dismissing its claim of ownership of land in dispute under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the land fell within the definition of Shamlat Deh and vested in the Gram Panchayat.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claim raised by the petitioner was barred by the principle of res judicata as the ownership of the land had already been decided in earlier proceedings. The court also noted that the petitioner's attempt to challenge the previous orders was futile and imposed costs on the petitioner.
Issues: Ownership of land in dispute, application of the principle of res judicata, finality of previous proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, 1961.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claim raised by the petitioner was barred by the principle of res judicata as the ownership of the land had already been decided in earlier proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, 1961.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited with Poor Patients’ Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
Judgment
Mr. Lalit Batra, J.
This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner-Gram Panchayat, Bijalpur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘petitioner’), seeking quashing of order dated 04.02.2019 (Annexure P-4), passed by Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat (Exercising the Powers of Collector, Panchayat Land), Patiala, (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Collector’), vide which petition under Section 11 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Act, 1961’), filed by petitioner claiming ownership of land comprised in Khasra No.30//12(8-0), 13(6-8), 14(7-2) and 18(8-0), total land measuring 29 Kanals – 10 Marlas, situate in village Bijalpur, was dismissed. Further, petitioner has challenged order dated 16.03.2022 (Annexure P-6), rendered by Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) (Exercising the Powers of Commissioner), Rural Development and Panchayats Department (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Commissioner’), in terms of which, appeal preferred by Harbhajan Singh (proforma respondent No.6 herein), against above mentioned order dated 04.02.2019 (Annexure P-4), was dismissed.
2. Petitioner’s case in brief is that in terms of document Wazib-Ul-Arj, at the time of Consolidation in the year 1960-1961, area of Shamlat Deh measuring 973 Kanals – 7 Marlas (Baran land measuring 61 Kanals – 17 Marlas, Banjar Qadim land measuring 592 Kanals – 17 Marlas and Gair Mumkin land measuring 318 Kanals – 13 Marlas) has been left for the use of Gram Panchayat/villagers and cultivation and income to be managed by the Gram Panchayat. At the time of Consolidation, no area out of above said land was under cultivation of villagers and, thus, land in dispute was not in cultivating possession of private respondents as per requirement of Section 2(g) of Act, 1961. Therefore, the land in dispute falls within the definition of Shamlat Deh and vests in Gram Panchayat. As per Jamabandi for the year 1960-1961, in the column of ownership, entry is Shamlat Majqur and in the column of cultivation, entire Shamlat land is shown as cultivation Majqur, in column No.10, nature of land is shown as Banjar Qadim. Thus, it is apparent that land in dispute was never partitioned by villagers or it never came into cultivating possession of private respondents on or before 26.01.1950. Previously, petitioner had filed application under Section 7 of Act, 1961, seeking eviction of private respondents, which was decided against private respondents by the Collector, vide order dated 27.05.2002. Aggrieved against said order, private respondents preferred appeal, which was dismissed by the Commissioner, vide order dated 01.12.2004 observing therein that in the year 1997-1998, land in dispute was given on lease for Rs.5600/- to private respondents and the lease holder cannot challenge the title of true owner. Petitioner had filed petition under Section 11 of Act, 1961, against the private respondents in the year 2018, seeking declaration as owner of land in dispute. Above said petition was contested by private respondents. Vide order dated 04.02.2019 (Annexure P-4), Collector had dismissed the said petition in a summary manner, without framing any issue and giving any opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Above said order was assailed by Harbhajan Singh (proforma respondent No.6 herein), by filing appeal, however, the said appeal was dismissed, vide order dated 16.03.2022 (Annexure P-6) passed by Commissioner. Hence, instant petition has been instituted by petitioner for setting aside above said orders and seeking declaration as owner of land in dispute.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner inter alia contended that order dated 04.02.2019 (Annexure P-4) as well as order dated 16.03.2022 (Annexure P-6) are illegal, arbitrary, against law and facts and are liable to be set aside as petition filed by petitioner under Section 11 of Act, 1961, was dismissed without affording any opportuni
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of res judicata in civil proceedings, as enshrined in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to give finality ....
The court established that the Gram Panchayat has the right to claim ownership of land classified as 'Shamilat Deh' under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, and private claims must be substantiated....
The court affirmed that land classified as 'Banjar Qadim' does not vest in the Gram Panchayat unless proven otherwise, and the presumption of truth in revenue records was upheld, leading to the dismi....
The court emphasized that mere claims of ownership are insufficient; prima facie evidence of title must be established to invoke eviction proceedings under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act.
The court affirmed that prior judgments establishing land ownership create a statutory bar against subsequent claims, emphasizing the binding nature of res judicata.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
