TARA SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS six revision petitions under Section 54 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 are directed against separate orders of even dated i.e. 22.12.1999 passed by Mrs. Agya Rajinder Singh, the then Custodian General, Punjab while dismissing the review petitions under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. As all these revision petitions substantively deal with common question of law and facts they can, more appropriately, be disposed of by a common single order a copy of which shall be placed on each of the files. The facts of each of the revision petitions may be briefly referred to for appreciation of the controversy :- (i) In M.R. No. 22 of 2000 the petitioner claimed to be in continuous possession of land measuring 138K-14M situated in the Revenue Estate of village Bohllian, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar for the last 40 years except for Kashmir Singh who claimed to be in possession of some land for the last 8-10 years. They contended that the entire village was owned by Muslims who migrated to Pakistan at the time of partition of country and the land in question which was owned by the Muslims stood vested in the Custodian. The land continued to be described as evacuee till 1956 and was wrongly mutated in favour of the Gram Panchayat. They further contended that a Civil Suit for permanent injunction filed by Kashmir Singh, petition was decreed vide order dated 29.8.1997 of the Court of Additional District Judge, Ajnala. The petitioners asserted that they were entitled to get the land transferred on the basis of long continuous possession of land under the Govt. policy at reserve price. (ii) In M.R. No. 23 of 2000 the petitioners claimed to be in continuous cultivating possession of 101K-10M of land situated in village Chahia Taraf Aranian, Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar, for the last 40 years. They also pleaded that the land was owned by Muslims and on their migration to Pakistan at the time of Partition of the country the land stood vested in Custodian. The land continued to be recorded as evacuee property till 1961-62 when it was wrongly mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat. The petitioners claimed that they were entitled to get the land transferred at reserve price on the basis of their long continuous possession. (iii) In M.R. No. 24 of 2000 the petitioners claimed to be in possession of land measuring 134K-5M situated in village Bohllian Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar, for the last 25 years after the migration of the Muslims who were owners of the said land and it stood vested in Custodian after partition. According to them the land continued to be recorded as evacuee property in the Revenue record till 1956 when it was wrongly and illegally mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat. (iv) In M.R. No. 25 of 2000 the petitioners claimed to be in possession of land measuring 207K-6M situated in village Kotli Koru Tana Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar for the last 20 years. They asserted that the entire village was owned by Muslims who migrated to Pakistan at the time of partition of the country and the land in question which was owned by Muslims came to be vested in the Custodian after partition in the copies of Jamabandi for the year 1943-44 and 1951-52 it was entered as 'Shamlat Hasab Rasad Khewat'. The petitioners alleged that the land continued to be recorded in the revenue record as evacuee property till 1961-62 when it was wrongly and illegally mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat. According to them the land bearing entry 'Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat' belongs to proprietors of the village and does not vest in Gram Panchayat. The petitioners asserted that they were in continuous possession of land and were entitled to get the land at reserve price under the Govt. Policy. (v) In M.R. No. 26 of 2000 the petitioners claimed to be in possession of land measuring 205K-7M of land situated in village Kotli Koru Tana for the last 20 years. They contended that the entire village was owned by Muslims who migrated to Pakistan at the time of the partition of country and the land stood vested in the Custodian. The land continued to be recorded in the revenue record as evacuee property till 1961-62 when it was wrongly mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat. The petitioners contended that they were entitled to get the land transferred on the basis of long continuous possession under the Govt. policy at reserve price. (vi) In M.R. No. 27 of 2000 the petitioners claimed to be in possession of land measuring 78K-4M of land situated in village Chahia Taraf Aranian Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar, for the last 40 years. They contended that the entire village was owned by Muslims who migrated to Pakistan at the time of the partition of country and the land stood vested in the Custodian. The land continued to be recorded in the revenue record as evacuee property till 1961- 62 when it was wrongly and illegally mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat. The petitioners contended that they were entitled to get the land transferred on the basis of long continuous possession under the Govt. policy at reserve price.

(2.) ON a notice being given to the Gram Panchayat by the Court of Assistant Custodian General, they contested the petitions and they contended that the revision petitions were not maintainable being hopelessly time-barred and also not being against any orders of the lower Courts. If was further asserted that the land in dispute vested in the Gram Panchayat long back and the same was being given on 'chakota' by the Gram Panchayat and the money received was being utilised for the welfare of the village community. Petitioners being the lessees were supposed to vacate the land on the expiry of the terms of lease. It was further contended that the land vested in the Gram Panchayat being Shamlat Deh and mutation could be challenged only before the competent authority under the Land Revenue Act; and the vesting could be challenged only under the provisions of Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

(3.) I have carefully examined the records and have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. I find myself in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the Learned Asstt. Custodian General, while dismissing the revision petition under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, which could not be successfully assailed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.