The Collector lacks jurisdiction to alter land mutations based on overruled amendments; disputes over land rights must be resolved through civil suits.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner-Gram Panchayat lays a challenge to the order dated 12.12.1995 (Annexure P- 7), as made by the Collector, Sirsa whereby the latter allowed the suit of the plaintiff thereins, whereby he claimed that mutation in respect of the disputed lands be entered in his favour.

Brief facts of the case.

2. It has been averred in the writ petition that the petitioner- Gram Panchayat is the owner of the disputed lands which was being leased out by the Gram Panchayat from time to time.

3. That the land in question is Gair Mumkin Chhapar which was being used for the benefit of the village community. The entry in the name of Gram Panchayat has been done in terms of Notification No.6653/R/11/61/6239-57 dated 22.09.1961 and necessary mutation in favour of Gram Panchayat was entered into vide mutation No. 300 dated 22.02.1965. Since, 1965 till date the Gram Panchayat is in possession of the land in question as owner and the same is being used for the common purposes.

4. That one Ram Narain filed a petition before the Collector, Sirsa, for entering mutation of land measuring 49 kanals 19 marlas, comprised in Rect. No. 63, Killa No. 10/1, 10/3, 10/4, Rect. No. 84 Killa No. 6, 15/1, 9/2, 11, and, Khasra No. 145 and Rect. No. 74 Killa No. 17/2 (2-16) situated in Village Dhanoor District Sirsa and for delivery of possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 145 (29 kanals 16 marlas), on the premise that after use of the land for common purpose, bachat land is the property of the proprietors.

5. Through an order made thereons, on 12.12.1995 (Annexure P-7), the Collector concerned, accepted the said petition and ordered for the change of mutation besides ordered for handing over the possession of the disputed lands to the plaintiff.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-Gram Panchayat filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Hisar Division. Through an order made thereons, on 01.02.1996, the Commissioner, Hisar, set aside the order dated 12.12.1995 (Annexure P-7) of the Collector, Sirsa.

7. However, respondent No. 2 challenged the said order of the Commissioner, Hisar, through his filing CWP No. 3321 of 1996 before this Court.

8. Through an order made on 09.05.1995, on the apposite writ petition, this Court disposed of the said writ petition. Relevant part of the order is extracted hereinafter.

"Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the order of the Commissioner, Annexure P-5 be quashed and it be held that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition. The counsel for the Gram Panchayat has submitted before us that he may be permitted to file a writ petition. The Gram Panchayat if so advised may file a writ petition challenging the order of the Collector dated 12.12.1995 against which the revision petition was filed. In view of the agreement of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of and the order Annexure P-5 is hereby quashed."

9. The petitioner-Gram Panchayat has now preferred the instant writ petition challenging order dated 12.12.1995 (Annexure P- 7).

Inference of this Court.

10. Undisputedly, in the revenue records the disputed lands are entered as Gair Mumkin Chappar. Moreover, an entry of mushtarka malkan is also occurring in the revenue records. Prima facie, the above made entries are a sequel of a mutation in respect of the lands (supra), becoming attested in the year 1965, thus in favour of the Gram Panchayat concerned.

11. In making the said espousal, the petitioner rested the same on anvil of orders passed by this Court, on 08.05.1995, on CWP No.10632 of 1992. The said writ petition was filed at the instance of one Ram Narain and ultimately this Court through a decision made thereons, on 08.05.1995, disposed of the said writ petition along with other connected cases, through its making the hereinafter extracted orders.

" This writ petition is disposed of in terms of decision of Full Bench in CWP No. 5877 of 1992 (Jai Singh an