HARJINDER SINGH S/O SH. BALVIR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AAKRI, TEHSIL RAJPURA, DISTRICT PATIALA Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT, VILLAGE AAKRI, TEHSIL RAJPURA, DISTT. PATIALA; DIRECTOR, RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATS, PUNJAB (EXERCISING THE POWERS OF COMMISSIONER), CHANDIGARH; COLLECTOR-CUM-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NAWANSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Letters Patent Appeals No. 22, 30, 46 and 47 of 2012, arising from the common order dated 17.8.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby four separate writ petitions (Civil Writ Petitions No. 15937, 17944, 17943 and 17565 of 2006) filed by Gram Panchayat, Village Aakri, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala (respondent No. 1 herein) were allowed. All these appeals have been filed by the proprietors. The title suits filed by them under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961') claiming themselves to be owners in possession of the land in question were dismissed by Collector, Nawanshahr, vide order 18.4.2006, while holding that the land in dispute described in the revenue record as 'Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zar Khewat' is being used for the benefit of the village community, and thus it falls under the definition of 'shamlat deh' and the same shall vest in the Gram Panchayat under Section 4 of the Act of 1961. On separate appeals, filed by the appellants under Section 11(2) of the Act of 1961, the Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector, while holding that the suit land was in continuous possession of the appellants and was wrongly shown as ownership of the Gram Panchayat. It was further held that the Gram Panchayat had failed to lead any documentary evidence to prove that the suit land was kept reserved for the common purpose of the village. It was also not proved by the Gram Panchayat that proprietors were holding land more than their share.

(2.) The Gram Panchayat challenged the said order of the Commissioner by filing separate writ petitions, which were allowed by the learned Single Judge, and after setting aside the order of the Commissioner, the title suits of the appellants were dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge has been challenged in these appeals.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and going through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the orders passed by the authorities under the Act of 1961, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order.