(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 15.7.1999, of learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Smt. Budho Devi w/o Chandan was having a share in Shamilat deh of the village Sheikhpura of Tehsil and District Karnal. On her death on 8.11.1954, her daughter Punni Devi inherited her land. On the death of Budho Devi, one Ganga Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent, Om Parkash, got entered and sanctioned mutation No. 544 on 19.3.1955. The said mutation also included the share of Smt. Budho Devi in Shamilat deh. Thereafter, Ganga Ram filed a suit for declaration of the entire estate of Smt. Budho Devi. The suit was ultimately dismissed by Hon'ble High Court on 9.2.1961, holding that Ganga Ram was 6th decree (degree ?) collateral and he had no preferential rights against Smt. Punni Devi. Consequently, mutation No. 580 was sanctioned in favour of Smt. Punni Devi on 20.10.1961, but the share of Smt. Budho Devi in the Shamilat deh, was left out of this mutation. However, under the orders of learned Collector, Karnal, Fard-Badar was prepared and share of Smt. Budho Devi, even in the Shamilat deh, was also incorporated in the Jamabandi of 1983-84 and all co-sharers partitioned the said share of Shamilat through the mutation No. 987 sanctioned on 19.11.1988. However, later on, the names of the respondents before learned Collector, Karnal, were deleted. On the application of the petitioners, the learned Collector, Karnal, ordered the correction in this mutation and fresh mutation No. 1046 was sanctioned. The matter went in appeal before the learned Collector, Karnal, who vide order dated 5.11.1992, remanded the case to the ACIIG, Gharaunda. Dalip Singh, petitioner, made an application before the ACIIG, objecting to the sanctioning of this mutation and the same was sent by ACIIG, Gharaunda to ACIG, Gharaunda for deciding the said mutation as a contested one. Ld. ACIG, Gharaunda, vide order dated 22.5.1995, rejected this mutation and even the appeal against his order was dismissed by ld. Collector, Karnal on 11.6.1997. The learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, came to the conclusion that the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court had clinched the issue for ever in their order dated 9.2.1961, vide which Smt. Punni Devi and her issues were allowed a preferential right on the land of Smt. Budho Devi and, therefore, the successors of Smt. Budho Devi had the same rights in the Shamilat deh by virtue of their being proprietors of the village. Therefore, he took the view that mutation No. 580 did not consider this fact and accordingly he accepted the revision filed by the respondents and set aside the mutation No. 1046, in favour of the petitioners. The learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, also gave a passing reference that the Gram Panchayat could file a case under Section 13-A of the VCL Act for pressing their rights on the area of Charand which is a part of the present land in dispute. Hence this revision.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners rebutted the version of the L.O. on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, and contended as under : During the course of consolidation, the land in lieu of the disputed land was contributed by the proprietors including the petitioners in the year 1955-56 as their share to the formation of common pool for being used for common purposes. After meeting the requirements of the village community to the co- sharers, certain land remained unutilised which is recorded as 'Bachat' land. The proprietors continued to be the owners of that land with clear title. On the basis of this factum, he has contended that co-sharers have all rights to partition the 'Bachat' land. The partition of the land in this case was the right of the co-sharers which they duly exercised in the year 1988 as discussed above. The mutations were sanctioned in favour of all the co- sharers as per their shares in the disputed land. The Gram Panchayat since 1988 has never raised any dispute. It has implicitly accepted the disputed land to be a property of the co-sharers. The limited dispute is between the petitioner and the respondents as that the former are claiming the 'Bachat' land exclusively for themselves and the respondents are asserting for share in it. The dispute is limited to 43K-11M in the present petition. Therefore, Panchayat does not have any locus standi to intervene in the matter. He further assailed the contention of the learned L.O. on behalf of the Gram Panchayat in stating that there is no proof of 'Charand' land. The land in dispute has been under their cultivating possession throughout. Therefore, he has pleaded that petitioners' claim for exclusive share in the disputed land should be accepted as they were the exclusive contributors to the area of land during consolidation in lieu of which they have got the disputed land.