Advocates:
USHA NANDINI V.

1

ITEM NO.6 Court 11 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IV-B

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 25956/2020

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-08-2015

in RSA No. 4977/2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana

at Chandigarh)

RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, JUNDLA & ANR. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

S.B. SARDAR BALWANT SINGH TECHNICAL AND

SCIENTIFIC EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.) & ORS.

Respondent(s)

[FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.119029/2021-CONDONATION OF DELAY

IN FILING and IA No.119030/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE

IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.119032/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

and IA No.119028/2021-PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..) ]

Date : 22-10-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv.

Ms. Usha Nandini. V, AOR

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Permission to file special leave petition is granted.

Delay condoned.

The grievance of the petitioners is that the

plaintiffs/respondents have taken contradictory plea asserting

firstly, that they are owners of the land being khewatdar in the

Village and secondly, claiming allotment as a displaced person.

In the first suit for injunction filed by the

plaintiffs/respondents, the stand of the plaintiffs was that the

land in question is Mushtarke Jumle Malkan Va Deegar Haqdaran Hasab

Rashad Raqba which was carved out after allotting the land to the

Digitally signed by R

Natarajan

Date: 2021.10.26

16:26:50 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

various right holders. The plaintiff-Society was also a co-sharer

in the said Mushtarka Jumle Malkan. Thus, it was asserted that

during consolidation a land was carved out by applying pro-rata cut

which is reserved for common purposes of the villagers. Therefore,

suit for injunction was filed against the Gram Panchayat. But the

present proceedings arise out of a suit against the State whereas

the State has no interest over the land as it is the Gram Panchayat

who is to manage the land reserved for common purposes during con-

solidation proceedings.

In view of the said fact, the remedy of an aggrieved

person is under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,

1961 (in short, the ‘Act’) so as to raise a question of title. The

authorities under the Act are the competent authorities to decide

the question whether the land is Shamlat or not. The Judgment and

decree passed in the suit filed against the State will not affect

the rights of Panchayat as it was not party to such proceedings.

With the aforesaid liberty, the special leave petition is

disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(SWETA BALODI) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)