JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.02.2020 (Annexure P-11)which was upheld vide orders dated 13.01.2022 (Annexure P-13) and 08.02.2024 (Annexure P-14) passed by the appellate authorities, whereby the authorities below have rejected their claim for being considered as owners of the land in dispute referred under Section 13A of the Punjab Village Common Lands(Regulation) Act 1961 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for declaring them joint owner in possession of the disputed land. The petition filed on 19.12.2019 (Annexure P-10) was filed by way of representative capacity with regard to the land falling in village Sarsad Sub Tehsil Khanpur, District Sonipat. The petitioners had also sought declaration regarding mutation No.1108 of the said village to be declared as illegal, invalid and not binding on the rights of the petitioners. The Collector, Sonipat noticed that eviction order had already been passed on 27.03.2001 (Annexure P-1) by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade Gohana regarding the land in dispute which had further been upheld in appeal on 22.04.2003 (Annexure P-2) and the revision filed by the petitioners had been dismissed on 11.08.2004 (Annexure P-3) by the Commissioner.

2. A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that at first instance after the Commissioner had decided against the present petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest on 11.08.2004, the petitioners filed CWP No.6135 of 2006 titled 'Jora Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others' and the Coordinate Bench of this Court, as such has held that the mutation had been entered in the year 1956 and Consolidation took place in the year 1957-58 and the land in dispute was being used for common purposes and nobody had raised any objection. The land was given on lease since the year 1996 and no evidence had been produced to controvert the claim of the Gram Panchayat. Resultantly, it is held that the land in dispute is a 'Shamlat Deh' land for all intents and purposes and the writ petition was accordingly, dismissed on 24.04.2006 (Annexure P-4). The relevant portion reads asunder:-

'We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the case file meticulously.

There is no dispute to the fact that Mutation No.1108 was entered in the year 1956 where under the land in dispute has been described as in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. This mutation was accepted in general meeting of the villagers. Thereafter, the Consolidation of Holdings Proceedings were undertaken in the village in the year 195758. Under the Consolidation, the land in dispute was left for use of common purposes. Nobody raised any objection at the time of Consolidation. It shows that the land in dispute was in possession of the Gram Panchayat even before the Consolidation proceedings in the village. It had also come on record that the Gram Panchayat used to give the land in dispute on contract since the year 1996. The petitioners have not adduced any documentary proof on record in order to controvert the claim of the Gram Panchayat in this regard.

So far as the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the land in dispute does not fall within the definition of 'Shamlat Deh' under Section 2(g) of the Act, the same is also without any merit. Now with the amendment as per Act No.9 of 1992, the land described as Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat comes under the definition of 'Shamlat Deh' under section 3 of the Act. Thus, the land in dispute is a 'Shamlat Deh' for all intents and purposes and the Gram Panchayat is the owner thereof.

In view of the above, the Gram Panchayat has rightly been given the possession of the land in dispute by the authorities under the Act.

Consequently, there is no merit in this petition It is accordingly, dismissed in limine.'

3. The said matter was taken to the Apex Court by filing SLP(C) No.13536 of 2006 titled 'Zora Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana &