Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurbachan Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 July, 2012
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Rekha Mittal
CWP No.11828 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.11828 of 2012
Date of Decision:09.07.2012
Gurbachan Singh and others ..... Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL
Present:Mr.S.S.Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioners.
*******
RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioners, have filed the present petition, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing respondents No.2 to 4 to re- transfer the ownership of land measuring 71 kanals and 4 marlas admittedly recorded as Jumla Mushtarka Malkan.
The petitioners claim that they have served legal notices, which have neither been considered nor has any mutation been sanctioned in favour of the petitioners.
We have heard counsel for the petitioners and clarify that the petitioners' claim for sanction of mutation of ownership in favour of proprietors based upon the judgment in Jai Singh Versus State of Haryana, 2003(2), PLR 658, is entirely misplaced. The Full Bench in Jai Singh's case (supra) has, while considering the vires of Section 2(g)(6) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, clearly held that land recorded as Jumla Mushtarka Malkan shall vest in the Gram Panchayat in accordance with vesting set out under the CWP No.11828 of 2012 -2- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 and East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, i.e. management and control of such land shall continue to vest in the Gram Panchayat whereas ownership shall remain with the proprietors.
As a consequence, we find no reason to issue the writ as prayed. Even otherwise, mutations cannot be sanctioned on the basis of legal notices or representations.
Dismissed.
[ RAJIVE BHALLA ]
JUDGE
09.07.2012 [ REKHA MITTAL ]
shamsher JUDGE