LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 666 OF 2011 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

DATE OF DECISION: May 04 , 2011.

Parties Name

Gram Panchayat Jalalpur

...APPELLANT.

VERSUS

Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and others

...RESPONDENTS

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg

PRESENT: Mr. N.P.S. Mann,

Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Avnish Mittal, Adv., for respondent No. 3.

Jasbir Singh, J. (oral)

JUDGMENT

This order will dispose of four Letters Patent Appeals bearing

No. 666 to 669, all of the year 2011, involving similar questions of law and

facts. For facility of dictating judgment, facts are being taken from LPA No.

666 of 2011.

This appeal has been filed against judgment, passed by the

learned Single Judge on February 9, 2011, dismissing Civil Writ Petition

No. 11941 of 2006, filed by the appellant.

LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 666 OF 2011 (O&M)

-2-

Heard.

As per facts on record, land in dispute was shown as “Shamlat

Deh Hasab Hisas Mundarza Shijra Rasab” in jamabandi for the year 1952-

53. A mutation was sanctioned, transferring this land, in favour of the Gram

Panchayat on August 25, 1956 and thereafter it continued to be shown as

such throughout. On February 5, 2003, respondent No. 3 filed an

application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands

Regulation Act, 1961 (in short the Act) claiming ownership of the land in

dispute, on a ground that the land was not Shamlat Deh as alleged. It was

partitioned amongst the share-holders before the year 1953 and thereafter it

remained in their cultivating possession till the date of filing of that

application.

Notice was sent to the appellant and after putting in

appearance, claim of respondent No. 3 was opposed on a ground that the

land in dispute is the ownership of the Gram Panchayat and is being used

for the common purposes of the village. It was further stated that at times,

the Gram Panchayat had released this land to various individuals for

cultivation.

However, to support that assertion, no evidence was produced

in Court except oral statement of the then Sarpanch.

The Collector vide order dated April 6, 2004, allowed an

application filed by respondent No. 3 by observing as under:

“I have heard both the counsels at length and perused the

documents on file. The Gram Panchyat has failed to produce

any record of auction. The best evidence has been withheld by

LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 666 OF 2011 (O&M)

-3-

the Gram Panchayat and the adverse influence is drawn against

it. Further the Sarpanch has suffered statement that the

Panchayat used to give this land for cultivation purposes which

means that the land is not of Banjar nature and the same is

cultivable land. It gives support to the case of the petitioner

that he is cultivating the land in dispute. The Gram Panchayat

has failed to prove its case and could not produce any record on

file. None of the witnesses other than the Sarpanch has stepped

into the witness box on behalf of the Gram Panchayat. The

arguments made by the learned counsel for the respondent that

the land stood mutated in the name of Gram Panchayat and it

was never challenged by the petitioner has no force.

In view of settled legal proposition that the mutation

does not confer any title. Moreover, the wrong revenue entries

did not per see oblige person to file suit unless and until there is

actual threat to his right. In the present case, the petitioner

remained in cultivating possession of the land in dispute which

was never disturbed by the respondent, therefore, the wrong

revenue entries does not effect the right of the petitioner.

In view of my these observations, the petitioner has

successfully established his case qua the property in dispute

and respondent has miserably failed to rebut the claim of the

petitioner. Therefore, the petition is accepte