(1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition is to an order passed by learned Collector, Ludhiana dated 21.12.1981 (Annexure P-5) and the order in appeal passed by learned Commissioner dated 15.11.1985 (Annexure P- 6), whereby a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act') was dismissed.
(2.) THE petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 11 of the Act claiming the ownership over the land measuring 31 kanals 6 marlas as per the Jamabandi for the year 1976-1977. The Panchayat asserted that earlier the Panchayat has succeeded in a case filed by the petitioner before the civil Court and that the petitioner is not the owner of the suit land and has no concern with the same. In evidence, the petitioner appeared as his own witness as PW-1. He deposed that Mohammadans in the village have given land in dispute to his father as a gift and he is in cultivating possession of the same for the last 40 years. He and his father have never given any chakota of this land. He further deposed that during consolidation in the year 1960, the land was given to him. The petitioner has produced a copy of the Consolidation Scheme (Exh. P-2), Misal Hakiat for the year 1959-1960 (Exh. P-3) and Jamabandi (Exh. P-5). Apart from the said evidence, the petitioner examined PW-2-Sh. Atma Ram. He has deposed that the possession of the land was given to the petitioner during consolidation. He further deposed that disputed land might be of the Pachayat but the well belongs to the petitioner-Baru. Petitioner examined Kartar Ram as PW-3 who has deposed that disputed land was in possession of the father of the petitioner. It was Mohammadans who have given this land to his father as a gift.
(3.) LEARNED Collector on the basis of the evidence found that the Gram Panchayat is recorded as owner in the Jamabandies. Reliance was placed upon AIR 1974 Pb. 283 Shiv Charan Singh v. Gram Panchayat Narike, Tehsil Malerkotla to hold that from the Jamabandi, the disputed land is in the ownership of the Panchayat. It was also found that the petitioner has not produced any evidence that he was in the possession of this land before 26.1.1950 and consequently, dismissed the petition. In the appeal, learned Commissioner affirmed the finding recorded. It also held that the petitioner has not produced any document to show that the land in dispute is the same which he got after consolidation operations and that the petitioner has not produced any revenue record that he is in possession of the land in dispute since 1961-1962 as cultivator.