Jugwinder Singh v. District Development and Panchayat Officer and Others

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)

¶1The petitioner became aggrieved from Annexure P-5, wherebys the learned Collector concerned, rejected the present petitioner's claim as became founded, upon the proviso to Section 7 of  The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961  (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").   The   relevant   portion   of   the   said   proviso   becomes   extracted hereinafter. "[Provided that if after receipt of the application and before the Panchayat is put in possession of the land or other immovable property in the shamilat deh, a question of right, title or interest in such land or property is raised by any person and a prima facie case is made out in support thereof, the Collector shall direct the person who has raised such question to submit his claim under section 11 and till the question is so determined, the application shall remain pending: Provided further that if the person, who has raised the question of right, title or interest, fails to submit his claim under section 11 within the time prescribed under that section, the Collector shall presume that no question of right, title or interest is involved and shall proceed further to put the Panchayat in possession of the land or other immovable property in the shamilat deh]."

¶2'd4itted,9- a *etition cast !nder Section 7 of t/e 'ct 1eca4e instit!ted 1efore t/e DDP%6c!46#o,,ector- Patia,a. 'fter notice on t/e said *etition 1eco4in+ ser.ed- !*on t/e *resent *etitioner- /e fi,ed re*,9 t/ereto. In   t/e   said   re*,9-   t/e   re,e.ant   *ortion   8/ereof   1eco4es   e5tracted /ereinafter- /e in ter4s of t/e a1o.e e5tracted *ro.iso asserted tit,e to t/e dis*!ted ,ands- and- o1.io!s,9 ref!ted t/at tit,e in t/e s!it ,ands- .ested in t/e Gra4 Panc/a9at concerned. "That para No.2 of the petition as mentioned is wrong and hence denied. Land mentioned in the petition is not the ownership of Nagar Panchayat alias Shamlat Deh nor this land was reserved for any common purposes. The land in question never remained under the control of petitioner Gram Panchayat nor the Gram Panchayat has earned any income from this land. Therefore, question of utilization it for the common interest does not arise at all. Actual story is that this land is their own of owners of village Kalar Bhaini which is partitioned in 24 'Hals'. In column of ownership, the entry is 'shamlat deh malkiat 24 Hals Mundarja Shijra Nisab' clear meaning that according to pedigree table, this land of 24 Hals/shares is of Khewatdars of Village and the Khewatdars of the village are cultivating this land according to their shares from the time of their forefathers. During consolidation, this land comprised in Khasra No.543, 544, 546 vide Khewat No.10/11 of Khatauni Pamaish was allotted to Natha Singh son of Baru Singh as owner. This allotment was never ITHLESH KUMAR challenged by any person. Later on, this land was entered in the ownership of 'shamlat deh malkiat 24 Hals Mundarja Shijra Nisab but the respondent is in possession as owner over this land since from the time of Kartar Kaur daughter of Mangal Singh, grandmother of respondent who was Khewatdar of the village at that time. Respondent is her grandson. Kartar Kaur daughter of Mangal Singh was recorded in the column of possession in Khewat No.66 of jamabandi for the year 1978>79 and jamabandi 1982>83, 1987>88 till 2007>2008 and in column No.9 of the jamabandi, the entry 'Billa Lagan Bawaja Malkiat Tasabar Malkiat is mentioned. From the co>joint reading of entries of column of possession and column No.9 of rent, it is clear that Kartar Kaur daughter of Mangal Singh was in possession over it as owner. After the death of Kartar Kaur daughter of Mangal Singh, the respondent being her grandson had become its owner in possession in Jamabandi for the year 2013> 2014. In column No.9 of Jamabandi for the year 2002>2003, entry 'Bila Lagan Bawaja Malkiat Tasabar Malkiať is mentioned. From it, it is clear that the respondent is owner in possession. Here, it is made clear that in Scheme consolidation, the land which was reserved for charand is measuring 153 Bighas 17 Biswas comprised in Khasra Nos.440, 441 to 463, 438. Thus, above said Khasra numbers are not mentioned in the year of Charand. Apart from this, it is made clear that apart from this khewat, according to ownership of Shamlat Khewat No.63 Is mentioned in Jamabandi for the year 1972>73 in which Khasra Nos. 438, 440 to 463 total measuring 156 Bighas 3 Biswas is Banjar Qadim and apart from it, for common purposes area like Ahle Salam, Maqbooja Ahle Hanood, Ghamiar, Hospital, School, Panchayat Ghar and area for Harizans, Ramdasia, Kamian and for Raffae>am is lying separately which is mentioned in Khewat No.165, total measuring 242 Bighas 13 Biswas in the present jamabandi. Gram Panchayat is utilizing this area and the land mentioned in the petition never remained the ownership of Gram Panchayat. Apart from this, it is also for consideration that Kartar Singh son of Sunder Singh son of Kharak Singh had got transferred Khasra Nos.157(8>11), 158(8>0) out of khewat ofITHLESH KUMAR 'Shamlat Deh Malkiat 24 Hals Mundarja Shijra Nisab' in their names by filing Suit No.182 dated 10.7.1981, from the court and its mutation was sanctioned. Apart from it, out of said area, area measuring 53 Bighas 6 Biswas, Sucha Singh son of Ghumand Singh ½ share, Saun Singh son of Ghumand Singh ½ share out of 24 Hals of above said khewat had got entered in their ownership from the court in suit No.322 dated 9.8.1968 decided on

25.1.1969 and its mutation No.659 was attested. Apart from this, Glan Singh son of Kirpal Singh vide Suit No.259 decided on

10.11.1971 had got transferred area measuring 36 Bighas of his share in his name, its mutation No.601 was sanctioned in the name of Gian Singh. Apart from this, Amar Singh son of Rur Singh had got transferred area measuring 21 Bighas 8 Biswas by considering its own area of its share from the court in suit No.160 decided on 10.6.1969, its mutation No.718 was sanctioned. Gram Panchayat has not challenged the above said order till today. From it, it is clear that Gram Panchayat has not admitted this land as its own land. Thus, 'Question of Title' is involved and if the Gram Panchayat considers itself as owner of this land then the petitioner has to get the question of title decided from the competent court. Here, it is important to mention here that Naranjan Singh son of Hardial Singh son of Nidhan Singh had got transferred area measuring 64 Bighas 13 Biswas out of land of Shamlat Deh in his name vide suit No.158 decided on 16.6.1969, its mutation No.638 was sanctioned but till today, the Gram Panchayat has not challenged even this area of shamlat land. Therefore, the plea of Gram Panchayat that the land in question was reserved for common purposes and its control is with the Gram Panchayat is totally wrong."

¶3"/e   ,earned   #o,,ector   concerned-   t/ro!+/   'nne5!re   P67 retiected t/e said assertion of tit,e as 1eca4e 4ade to t/e dis*!ted ,ands- 19 t/e *resent *etitioner. "/o!+/- it is s!14itted 19 t/e ,earned co!nse, for t/e *etitioner t/at t/e ,earned #o,,ector concerned- 8as reA!ired to 1e 4aBin+ a authenticity of this order/ju8dgmee,nt, reasoned and *rofo!nd conte4*,ation A!a 8/et/er t/e a1o.e e5tracted contention raised by the present petitioner in his response to the Section 7 petition, and, which became founded upon the above proviso, thus was as a matter  of fact a well  raised  contention. However, the said profound contemplation  qua  the asserted facts, rather remained unmade by the Collector concerned.

¶4A reading of the impugned order (Annexure P-5) reveals, that the Collector concerned, has in a most slipshod and arbitrary manner, besides without making any profound contemplation, and, without his assigning any reason for rejecting the said contention, rather has in a cryptic manner, dismissed the said motion, thus merely on the ground, that the said motion is intended to merely prolong the litigation which had become laid before him.

¶5In the face of the above, this Court finds merit in the instant petition, and, is constrained to accept it. Hence, the instant petition is allowed, and, the impugned Annexure P-5, is quashed, and, set aside. A direction is made to the learned Collector concerned, to make a well reasoned decision upon the said raised assertion by the present petitioner vis-a-vis the disputed lands. (SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE

07.03.2024     (RITU TAGORE) Ithlesh       JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:-  Yes/No

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-5463-2024 Date of decision:07.03.2024 JUGWINDER SINGH ...Petitioner Versus DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT OFFICER AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE Present: Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab ****