KRISHAN SINGH Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR IST GRADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the order of the Assistant Collector-I Grade, Mohindergarh dated July 30, 1980, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Rati Ram, father of the petitioner, sought declaration from Assistant Collector, I Grade, Mohindergarh to the effect that he was the exclusive owner-in-possession of the disputed land it did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The Assistant Collector I Grade, on examining the evidence produced before him, came to the conclusion that Rati Ram and prior to him, his father, had been in cultivating possession of the disputed land. However, relying upon the ratio of the judgment in Atma Ram v. Gram Sabha, Diwana, 1979 PunLJ 238 he held that a landowner cannot take the benefit of possession of his predecessor-in-interest. The possession of the predecessor-in-interest cannot be counted for determining the 12 years continuous cultivating possession prior to the commencement of the Pepsu Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1954 (for short, the Act). He however, held that Rati Ram succeeded in establishing his possession on the land measuring 6 Kanals for more than 12 years prior to the commencement of the Act and from the remaining land he was liable to the ejected.

(3.) The view taken by the Assistant Collector, I Grade cannot be sustained at law. In Pritam Singh v. The Collector, Sirsa and others, 1981 PunLJ 173 a Division Bench of this Court, after interpreting the identical provisions of Section 4(3) (ii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (18 of 1961) held that in order to find out the cultivating possession of the persons at the commencement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 under Section 4(3) (ii) of the 1961 Act, the earlier possession of their predecessor-in-interest, if any, could also be taken into consideration while calculating the period of 12 years, provided it had been continuous and without any interruption. In para 6 of the judgment, the Division Bench observed thus :-