JATINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 28.01.2010 (Annexure P3) passed by the Collector-cum- Additional Deputy Commissioner (D) Fatehgarh Sahib and order dated 22.07.2011 (Annexure P5) passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats Department, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (in short 'the 1961 Act').

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has constructed a house on a plot measuring 23'x88' comprised in Khasra No. 23/6/1, measuring 4 kanals 7 marlas, gair mumkin abadi. It is further contended that the petitioner is in possession of the land, in dispute, since the time of his forefathers and the same is not shamilat deh, in view of Section 2(g)(vi) of the 1961 Act. It is also contended that the petitioner filed a suit under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, which was dismissed and the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Collector (Annexure P3) was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority, by ignoring the fact that the land, in dispute, is a part of abadi deh and is not a part of shamilat deh. It is also argued that as the petitioner is in possession of the land, in dispute, prior to 26th January, 1950, the same is excluded from the definition of shamilat deh. It is further argued that the petitioner deposited Rs.5,000/- with Gram Panchayat of village Sanghol, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib as value of the land at Collector's rates, vide receipt No. 93 dated 06.11.1997 and the petitioner has become owner in possession of the land, in dispute. It has also been argued that the suit property was never used for any common purpose of the village and Gram Panchayat never came in possession of the suit property.

(3.) Counsel for respondent No. 3-Gram Panchayat, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has no right, title or interest in the land, in dispute, which is not a part of abadi deh. It is further contended that the petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence, much less a revenue document to prove his possession over the land, in dispute, on or before 26th January, 1950 or before the commencement of the 1961 Act to seek aid of Section 2 (g)(vi) and/or Section 2(g)(viii) of the 1961 Act. It is further contended that receipt in respect of deposit of Rs.5,000/- does not indicate the purpose of deposit, much less deposit being the sale proceeds of the land in question.