Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kacheru & Ors vs Gram Panchayat & Ors on 20 March, 2015
Bench: Surya Kant, Jaspal Singh
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
(1) Ghansham & Ors.
RA-CW-590-2014 in Versus
CWP-17297-2014 State of Haryana & Ors.
(2) Kacheru & Ors.
RA-CW-643-2014 in Versus
CWP-10173-2014 Gram Panchayat Berampur &
Ors.
****
Date of Decision: 20.03.2015
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
****
Present: Mr. JS Yadav, Advocate for the applicant(s)
****
SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)
(1) This order shall dispose of RA-CW-590-2014 and RA-CW- 643-2014 arising out of CWP-17297-2014 and CWP-10173-2014, respectively as both the above-cited writ petitions were decided by way of a common order. For brevity, RA-CW-643-2014 is taken as the lead case.
(2) This application seeks to review/recall the order dated August 26, 2014 whereby the review-applicant's writ petition challenging the orders passed by various authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as applicable to the State of Haryana were upheld and the writ petition was dismissed.
V.VISHAL 2015.04.23 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RA-CW-643-2014 -2- (3) The star contention raised in the review application is that the subject-land does not fall within the ambit of shamlat deh as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act and it stands excluded under Clause (viii). It may be mentioned here that after defining what is 'included' in shamlat deh, the proviso to Section 2(g) further states that the following land shall not include in the shamlat deh:-
"Provided that shamilat deh at least to the extent of twenty-five per centum of the total area of the village does not exist in the village but does not include land which -
(i) becomes or has become shamilat deh due to river action or has been reserved as shamilat in village subject to river action except shamilat deh entered as pasture, pond or playground in the revenue records;
(ii) has been allotted on quasi permanent basis to a displaced person;
(iii) has been partitioned and brought under cultivation by individual landholders before the 26th January, 1950;
(iv) having been acquired before the 26th January, 1950, by a person by purchase or in exchange for proprietary land from a co-sharer in the V.VISHAL 2015.04.23 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RA-CW-643-2014 -3- shamilat deh and is so recorded in the jamabandi or is supported by a valid deed.
(v) is described in the revenue records as shamilat taraf, patti, panna or thola and not used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village;
(vi) lies outside the abadi deh and was being used as gitwar, bara, manure pit, a house or for cottage industry immediately before the commencement of this Act;
(vii) is a shamilat deh of villages included in the fourteen revenue estates called 'Bhojas' of Naraingarh Tehsil of Ambala District;
(viii) was shamilat deh, was assessed to land revenue and has been in the individual cultivating possession of co-sharers not being in excess of their respective shares in such shamilat deh on or before the 26th January, 1950..."
(emphasis applied) (4) Having heard learned counsel for the review-applicant(s), we do not find any substance in the contention(s). The revenue record relied upon by the review-applicant itself reveals that Jia Ram
- their predecessor-in-interest was recorded to be in possession of the V.VISHAL 2015.04.23 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RA-CW-643-2014 -4- subject-land till 1945 as a mortgagee and/or gair marusi (Annexure P6). Immediate next is the jamabandi for the year 1956-57 (Annexure P7) which reveals that the Gram Panchayat was owner and Jia Ram was tenant at will and was not in the individual cultivating possession of the subject-land as on the cut-off date of 26.01.1950.
(5) If that is so, the contention of the review-applicant that he was in possession of the subject-land as a co-sharer cannot be accepted.
(6) It may be mentioned here that as per the prescribed procedure, the jamabandi reflects the sowing of consecutive crops of Rabi and Kharif at least for the last preceding four years. It thus means that the predecessor-in-interest of the review-applicant was in possession of the subject-land partly as a mortgagee and partly as gair marusi in and around the year 1951. No positive evidence has been led by the review-applicant to establish the nature of possession of their predecessor-in-interest in his capacity as a co-sharer in the year 1949-50.
(7) Dismissed.
(Surya Kant)
Judge
20.03.2015 (Jaspal Singh)
Singh)
vishal shonkar
Judge
V.VISHAL
2015.04.23 14:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document