Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gram Panchayat Dasondha Singh Wala vs Director Panchayat And Rural ... on 7 September, 2012
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Rekha Mittal
Civil Writ Petition No. 1875 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
--
Civil Writ Petition No. 1875 of 2012(O&M)
Date of decision: 07.09.2012
Gram Panchayat Dasondha Singh Wala, Tehsil Malerkotla District
Sangrur
........ Petitioner
Versus
Director Panchayat and Rural Development, Mohali and others
.......Respondent(s)
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
-.-
Present: Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate
for the petitioner
Ms Sudeepti Sharma, DAG,Punjab
Mr. J S Bhandohal, Advocate
for respondents No. 3 to 10
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
Rekha Mittal, J.
The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 01.07.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Director Panchayat and Rural Development, Mohali (exercising the powers of Commissioner under Punjab Villages Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (hereinafter refer as 'the 1961 Act').
Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner Civil Writ Petition No. 1875 of 2012 2 filed an application under Section 7 of the 1961 Act, seeking ejectment of respondents No. 3 to 10 from land falling in khasra No. 136, measuring 2 bigas 18 biswa (2898 sq. yards). The application of the petitioner was allowed by the District Development and Panchayat officer (exercising the powers of Collector), vide order, dated 14.06.2010 (Annexure P-4). It is submitted that respondents No. 3 to 10 preferred an appeal against order dated 14.06.2010 and the same was allowed by respondent No. 1, vide impugned order, dated 01.07.2011 (Annexure P-5) which is illegal and liable to be set aside. It is further argued that the suit land was being utilized by the residents of the village for their common purposes like marriages, meetings, shows and tethering of cattles etc., and therefore, the same falls within the definition of shamilat deh.
It is contended that respondents, being in an unauthorized possession of shamilat deh, have no right to retain its possession.
Counsel for the contesting respondents has urged that the suit land is a part of abadi deh as khasra No. 136 relates to abadi deh of village Dasondha Singhwala and the area of gair mumkin abadi is 166 kanals 5 marlas. It is contended that the Gram Panchayat failed to lead any tangible evidence to substantiate its plea that the suit land is the ownership of Gram Panchayat or the same falls within the definition of shalimat deh, and therefore, the appeal filed by the respondents has been rightly allowed and the order of ejectment passed by the Collector has been set aside.
We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and records.
It is admitted that the suit land, comprising khasra No. 136 is a part of abadi deh of village Dasondha Singhwala, Tehsil Malerkotla, SvOutPl Civil Writ Petition No. 1875 of 2012 3 District Sangrur. Jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 describes this land as abadi deh and in the column of possession, it is mentioned as makbuja abadi deh. Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act defines shamilat deh. Section 2(g) (1) includes land described in the revenue record as shamilat deh excluding abadi deh. Section 2(g) (4) includes; land within abadi deh used or reserved for the benefit of the village community, including streets, lanes, playgrounds, school, drinking wells, or ponds within abadi deh or gorah deh, within the definition of shamilat deh. The relevant part of Section 2
(g) of the 1961 Act, is extracted below, for facility of reference:-
"2(g) "shamilat deh" includes-
(1) lands described in the revenue records as
shamilat deh excluding abadi deh;
(2) xx xx xx
(3) xx xx xx
(4) lands used or reserved for the benefit of the
village community including streets, lanes,
playgrounds, school, drinking wells, or ponds
within abadi deh or gorah deh; and
(5) xx xx xx"
From a conjoint reading of sub section (1) and (4) of Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act, it is apparent that abadi deh is excluded from the definition of shamilat deh, but the lands of abadi deh or gorah deh used or reserved for the benefit of the village community including streets, lanes, playgrounds, school, drinking wells or ponds, are included in the definition of shamilat deh.
It is the positive stand of the petitioner that the suit land which is a part of abadi deh falls within the definition of shamilat deh on the premise that the same is used or reserved for the purpose described in sub section (4) of Section 2
(g) of the 1961 Act. Counsel for the petitioner could not make reference to any document to substantiate his plea that the suit land is used or reserved for the Civil Writ Petition No. 1875 of 2012 4 benefit of the village community in order to show that the same falls within the purview of sub Section (4) of Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act. The Appellate Authority, while disposing of the appeal preferred by the Gram Panchayat against the dismissal of its application for ejectment, has held that the Gram Panchayat has not adduced any evidence to prove that the land, which, admittedly, falls within abadi deh, would fall within the purview of Section 2 (g) (4) of the 1961 Act, for arriving at a conclusion that the suit land falls within the definition of shamilat deh.
In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, for adjudication of the question of title in respect of the suit land. In case, such a petition is filed and it is decided in favour of the petitioner, the Gram Panchayat would be at liberty file a fresh petition under Section 7 of the 1961 Act, seeking the ejectment of unauthorized occupants of the suit land.
(Rekha Mittal) Judge (Rajive Bhalla) Judge 07.09.2012 mohan