Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rur Singh (Died) Through Lrs Lakhwinder ... vs The Additional Director Of Panchayats on 26 November, 2013
Bench: Jasbir Singh, G.S. Sandhawalia
CWP No. 7610 of 1993 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
CWP No. 7610 of 1993
Date of decision : 26.11.2013
Rur Singh (died) through LRs Lakhwinder Kaur and others
........Petitioners
Vs.
The Additional Director of Panchayats, Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia
Present:- Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3
---
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
In this writ petition order passed by the Collector, Patiala (P-1) dated 7.8.1986 is under challenge. Vide that order, petitioner's application under Section 11 of the of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), to claim title in the land measuring 9 Bighas and 6 Biswas, was dismissed.
Further challenge is to an order dated 31.5.1990, dismissing appeal filed by the petitioner against the above said order.
As per facts on record, the petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Act, claiming ownership in the land, falling in Khasra Nos. 242 (4-13), 243 (5-6), total measuring 9 Bighas and 16 Biswas. To claim ownership, reliance was placed upon Jamabandi for the year 1979-80.
Kumar Ashwani2013.12.13 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 7610 of 1993 -2-
It was specifically averred by the petitioner that he is in cultivating possession of the land in dispute since before 26.1.1950, as such, in terms of the exception of Section 2(g) of the Act, he has become owner of the land in dispute.
Upon notice, reply was filed by the Gram Panchayat, wherein it was stated that ejectment order against the petitioner has already been passed and this application has been filed only to delay the execution of that order.
It was further stated that similar plea, that the petitioner was in cultivating possession before 26.1.1950, was taken in the proceedings under Section 7 of the Act, however, the petitioner failed to prove that fact. The Gram Panchayat also placed on record various documents to support its case.
The Collector Patiala vide order dated 7.8.1986 dismissed application filed by the petitioner by observing as under :-
"For hearing this case and according to the record Ex. A-1 to A-8, on the file, the ownership of the land in dispute is Nagar Panchayat and the applicant has proved its possession from 1963-64 to 1984-85. In the copy of Jamabandi, revenue record which is Ex.A-8, the same does not show the possession of the applicant in respect of the suit land. In this way, the applicant could not prove his possession prior to 26.1.1950, therefore, this application of the applicant is rejected."
When passing that order reference was made to all the documents on record and then it was said that the applicant could prove his possession in the land in dispute only from 1963-64 to 1984-85. His Kumar Ashwani 2013.12.13 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 7610 of 1993 -3- contention that, he was in possession as on 26.1.1950, was negatived by making reference to the revenue documents on record.
In appeal, finding given by the Collector, were affirmed. It was further observed that as per copy of Jamabandi, from the year 1963- 64, the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land in dispute and from the year 1974-75, as per Jamabandi, petitioner's un-authorised possession is recorded. It was further observed that the petitioner has not produced any evidence on record to negative entries made in the revenue record. On 31.5.1990, appeal was dismissed by observing as under :-
"I have heard both the parties at length and examined the records of case carefully. Both the parties have produced on record copies of Jamabandis from the year 1963-64 to 1989- 90 and it has been clearly proved from the Jamabandis that the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the disputed land and appellant is described to be in possession of this land. The possession of the appellant has been described as forcible possession from the jamabandi for the year 1974-75 upto the present Jamabandi. The appellant has not produced any evidence so that these entries be disbelieved in the revenue records. On the above facts, I come to the conclusion that the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the disputed land. The possession of the appellant has been described as forcible possession. There is no force in this appeal and the same is rejected."
At the time of arguments, counsel for the petitioners failed to show that any document was misread by the authorities below. There is no evidence on record to prove that the petitioner was in cultivating possession of the land in dispute on 26.1.1950 without payment of any rent.
Kumar Ashwani2013.12.13 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 7610 of 1993 -4-
As per facts on record, it has been established that possession of the petitioner starts from the year 1975. It has also come on record that at an earlier point of time, ejectment proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, under Section 7 of the Act wherein, his ejectment was ordered and those proceedings have become final. It appears that with a view to delay execution of ejectment order, this writ petition was filed.
No case is made out for interference in the orders under challenge.
Dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge (G.S. Sandhawalia) Judge 26.11.2013 Ashwani Kumar Ashwani 2013.12.13 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document