The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 4(3)(ii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961 in determining the possession and rights of the parties.

Judgment

Mr. Harsh Bunger, J.

Prayer in the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 24.04.2015 (Annexure P-9) passed by the learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and also an order dated 15.02.2018 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, brief facts culminating into the filing of the instant writ petition are that an eviction petition came to be filed by the Gram Panchayat, Village Sersa, Tehsil and District Sonepat against one Ran Singh son of Thakaria (father of the petitioners, herein). The said eviction petition filed against Ran Singh came to be allowed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sonepat and Ran Singh was ordered to be evicted from the land in question, comprised in killa No.76//16/2 (3K-12M). The aforesaid order dated 22.10.1986 came to be challenged by above-said Ran Singh by way of filing an appeal before the Collector, Sonepat, which came to be allowed vide order dated 14.02.1989 (Annexure P-1) and the matter was remanded by holding as under :-

“6. After hearing both the parties, I have perused the record available on file, the evidence and the order under challenge. From the perusal of documents Ex.AX-1 to Ex.AX-4, it is clear that with respect to the suit land, the suits were contested in the Civil Court and from the perusal of Ex.RX1 to RX8, it is also clear that Sh. Sultan Singh had remained a member panchayat and he had registered the Hibbenamas and mutation recorded from the side of Panchayat while he was not a member panchayat. From these facts, it is concluded that the question of title is involved in this case. The counsel for the appellant has raised the point of ownership in his argument. It was incumbent upon the Assistant Collector Ist Grade first to decide the question of title by converting the petition under Section 13-A from Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act (Regulation) but he did not do so. Therefore, while accepting the appeal, I, remand this matter to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade with the direction that he will, after converting the petition from Section 7 to Section 13-A of the Act, I decide the matter on merits afresh after giving an opportunity to both the parties to leadtheir respective evidence. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sonepat on dated 7.3.1989 for further proceedings. The file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.”

3. It appears that upon remand, while the proceedings were pending before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sonepat, said Ran Singh had expired and the present petitioners (being the legal heirs of aforesaid Ran Singh) were brought on record and thereafter, the title suit under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961 (in short ‘the 1961 Act’) was filed by the petitioners herein, claiming that they are the owners in possession of the land comprising Killa No.76//16/2 (3K-12M). For deciding the question of title of the land in question, the following issues were framed :-

“(i) Whether the petitioners are owner in possession of the suit land? OPP

(ii) Whether the suit land vest in the Gram Panchayat? OPD

(iii) Whether the gift deeds in favour of the respondents are correct? OPD

(iv) Whether the petition is maintainable in the present form? OPD

(v) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to decide the petition? OPD

(vi) Whether the suit is within limitation? OPD

(vii) Whether the suit does not disclose any cause of action? OPD

(viii) Relief.”

4. The parties led their respective evidence in support of their claims.

5. Thereafter, the learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sonepat vide his order dated 29.06.1995 (Annexure P-2) held that from the revenue record produced by the petitioners herein, it is proved that they are in possession of the suit land since 1937 and therefore, they cannot be evic