SHATAN SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the legality and validity the orders Annexures P-1 to P-3 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Bhiwani (exercising the powers of Assistant, Collector Ist Grade, Bhiwani) dated 11. 11. 1986, the Collector dated 5.5.87 and the Commissioner, Hissar Division, Hissar, dated 4.7.1989 respectively, dismissing the suit of the petitioners under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The facts of the case, in brief, may be noticed, in the first instance, in order to appreciate the questions involved in the petition.

(2.) The petitioners filed a suit under section 13-A of the Act for a declaration that they are the owner in possession of the land measuring 35 Kanals 8 Marlas comprising of Killa Nos. 194(16-0), 196(8-0), 199(7-12) and 204(4-16) entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1975-76 situated in village Kaila, tehsil and District Bhiwani. It is the case of the petitioners that Mutation No. 344 sanctioned on 22.8.64 mutating the aforementioned land in favour of the Gram Panchayat is illegal, void and not binding on the rights of the petitioners. The Gram Panchayat, while defending the suit stated in the written statement that the land was being used for common purposes of the whole village and that the mutation was rightly sanctioned. The suit of the petitioners was stated to be barred by time. On the basis of the pleas taken by the parties, the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) struck the following issues:

(3.) Under issue No. 1, it was held by the Assistant Collector that the petitioners are not in possession of the land in dispute which was owned by the Gram Panchayat. Under Issue No. 2, it was held that the suit was barred by time as the petitioners were not in possession of the disputed land. It was further held that the land in dispute was being used for common purposes of the village as a whole and comes within the definition of Shamlat deh. The suit was held to be not maintainable under issue No. 3. Issues Nos. 4 and 5 were not pressed by the law officers and, therefore, decided against the Gram Panchayat. Issue No. 6 was decided against the petitioners. Under Issue No. 7 it was held that even if the mutation was taken to be wrong the plaintiff, were unable to prove themselves to be the owners of the land in dispute.