In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Reserved on: 21.1.2025 Date of Decision: 4.2.2025 Tikka Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Argued by: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Hardip Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 4 and 5.

****

SURESHWAR THAKUR , J.

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners seek the quashing of the order dated 14.7.2011 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the application filed by the Gram Panchayat concerned, under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961’) was allowed, and, also seek the quashing of the order dated 4.4.2012 (Annexure P-14), passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the appeal filed against the supra dated

14.7.2011, was dismissed, and, the said order became affirmed.

Brief facts of the case

2. It is averred in the instant petition, that initially the land onwers including the present petitioners had filed an application under Section 11(1)

Gurpreet Singh I attest to the accuracy oanfd the Act of 1961 with a prayer thereins, that the land described as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zare Khewat, was in possession of the land owners prior to the year 1942-43, and, thus the same was not shamlat deh land. Through an order dated 15.11.1994, passed by the learned Collector concerned, the said application was allowed, and, the applicants therein were declared to be the owners to the extent of their share of the land shown as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Jar Khewat. The order (supra) was challenged by the Gram Panchayat concerned, through the filing of an appeal before the statutory appellate authority concerned, however, the said appeal was dismissed through an order made thereons on 21.5.1997.

3. Subsequently, the Gram Panchayat concerned preferred CWP No. 16196 of 1996 before this Court, which became dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, through an order made thereons on 3.11.1997. Being aggrieved therefrom, the Gram Panchayat concerned, approached the Apex Court, and, preferred SLP (Civil) No. 5129 of 1998, which became also dismissed vide order dated 27.3.1998.

4. Since despite the passings of orders (supra), yet with the apposite mutation becoming not attested in the name of the land owners concerned, therefore, the land owners filed COCP No. 1352 of 2020. However, during the pendency of the said petition, vide order dated 12.3.2001, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer(C)-cum-Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kharar, mutation was ordered to be sanctioned in favour of the land owners concerned.

5. Being aggrieved from the order (supra), the Gram Panchayat concerned, preferred an appeal, which became dismissed through an order made thereons on 20.6.2001. A revision petition was filed against the said Gurpreet Singh order before the learned Commissioner concerned, which was also dismissed. The Gram Panchayat concerned, challenged the supra orders respectively passed by the Assistant Collector, Collector, and by the Commissioner concerned, by filing a revision petition bearing ROR No. 405 of 2004. Vide order dated 10.3.2008, passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), the revision petition (supra) was allowed. The said order passed by the Financial Commissioner concerned, was challenged by the land owners concerned, through theirs filing CWP No. 12045 of 2008. In the said petition, the Gram Panchayat raised a plea that it had filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act, alleging thereins that the order dated 15.11.1994, had been obtained by perpetuating a fraud. The petition (supra) became allowed by this Court on 25.10.2010, and, the order dated 10.3.2008 passed by the Financial Commissioner concerned, was set aside.

6. Subsequently, the application (supra) filed by the Gram Panchayat concerned, was allowed vide the impugned order dated 14.7