BHAG SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this judgment, we shall decide Civil Writ Petition Nos. 8577 of 2002, 4477 of 2006, 10762 of 2009, 20312 of 2010, 11637, 11638, 11639, 11643, 11650, 11851, 12652, 12653, 12654, 20776 of 2010 and 2081 of 2012, as they involve adjudication of similar questions of law and fact. Facts necessary for adjudication are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 8577 of 2002. We need not burden the file by narrating the history of the case as it involves repeated orders of remand passed by the Commissioner or by this court, directing the Collector or the Commissioner, to decide the matter afresh. The matter was remanded, for the last time, to the Director-cum-Special Secretary, Government of Punjab, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Chandigarh, in Civil Writ Petition No. 19368 of 1997 for deciding the appeal afresh.

(2.) The dispute, in brief, is whether the land in dispute is excluded from "Shamilat Deh" as defined under section 2(g)(1) of the Punjab Village common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "1961 Act"). The Director has held that the land, in dispute, is "Shamilat Deh", and therefore, vests in the Gram Panchayat. It has also been held that as the petitioner has failed to prove that he was in possession of the land, before 26.1.1950, he cannot claim ownership. The Director has also held that as the petitioner had taken the land, in dispute, on chakota, from the Gram Panchayat, he can not challenge the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. As a result, the petitioners have also been ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute. The factual position is more or less similar in all the connected writ petitions.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is a nullity as the Collector has not framed issues, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. The order is even otherwise a nullity as authorities under the Act have not recorded a finding that the land is "Shamilat Deh". The recording of such a finding is a sine qua non for exercise of power under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1961 Act"). It is also argued that the land, in dispute, was recorded as "Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad, Zare Khewat", in possession of "Makbuja Malkan". Section 2(g)(1) of the 1961 Act postulates that land recorded as "Shamilat Deh" alone shall vest in the Gram Panchayat. The land has, therefore, been wrongly held to be "Shamilat Deh". In support of this argument, counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon judgments reported as G.P. Ugani v. State of Punjab, 1997 3 RCR(Civ) 79 and Gram Panchayat Muradpur v. State of Punjab, 1997 1 PunLJ 160.