STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SUBASH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment of ours will dispose of L. P. A. No. 516 of 1986 and L. P. As No. 622 to 630 of 1986, which have been filed by the State of Punjab and L. P. As No.353 to 361 of 1986 filed by different land-owners, against a common judgment of learned single Judge in C.W.P. No. 894 of 1981, decided on 18/03/1986 by which 17 writ petitions were decided.

(2.) C.W.P. No. 894 of 1981 and most of the connected writ petitions, when earlier pending in this Court, were referred to a Full Bench as there was a conflict between two Division Bench judgments of this Court in State of Haryana v. Mangat Ram, 1976 Current Law Journal (Civil) 498, and the State of Haryana v. Gram Panchayat, Village Kheri Jamalpur 1980 Punj LJ 204 as to whether the rival claims of the Government and the land-owners over the vesting of brickearth, a minor mineral, must be adjudicated upon only on the basis of the entries in the Sharait-Wajib-ul-arz of the revenue estate concerned. The Full Bench vide its judgment dated 3/06/1982 held that the rival claims of the parties over the vesting of the brickearth are not constricted to adjudication only on the basis of entries in the Sharait-wajib-ularz of the revenue estate and the claim to rebut the presumptions raised in Section 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, (hereinafter called the Act) by evidence in a Court of law cannot be summarily ousted. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed and the petitioners were relegated to the remedy of establishing their claims in appropriate proceedings in a Revenue or Civil Court, if so advised. "The petitioners approached the Supreme Court by means of Special Leave Petitions, which were allowed on 11/04/1985 and while remanding the cases to this Court, the Supreme Court, inter-alia, observed as under :-

(3.) On remand, those writ petition as well as some other writ petitions which were filed in this court after the Full Bench judgment, were heard by a learned single Judge, who, after allowing the parties, to lead documentary evidence as well as giving them opportunity of filing affidavits, allowed 10 writ petitions, against which L.P. As No. 516 of 1986 and 622 to 630 of 1986, have been filed by the State whereas 9 writ petitions were dismissed, against which the land-owners have filed L.P. As No. 353 to 361 of 1986.