GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE TULEWAL, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT PATIALA Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER(IRD), PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this order, we shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.18665, 18667 and 18526 of 1998, as they involve adjudication of similar questions of fact and law. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No.18665 of 1998.

(2.) The Gram Panchayat of Village Tulewal, Tehsil and District Patiala, prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 19.05.1998 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD), Punjab, (exercising power of 'Commissioner'). Respondent nos.3 to 6 filed a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act'), claiming that the land, in dispute, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The Collector-cumDistrict Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by this order, respondent nos.3 to 6 filed an appeal. The Joint Development Commissioner (IRD), Punjab, accepted the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Collectorcum-District Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala, and allowed the petition filed under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, by holding that the land, in dispute, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner-Gram Panchayat submits that the Collector, exercising power under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common, rightly held that the land, in dispute, vests in the Gram Panchayat. The Joint Development Commissioner-cumCommissioner, has reversed this order by holding that as the land was "Banjar Qadim" on 09.01.1954 and was not used, as per revenue record, for any common purposes, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The finding is factually and legally incorrect as the learned Commissioner was required to consider the quality of the land as on 04.05.1961 (date of coming into force of the 1961 Act) and not on 09.01.1954. The learned Commissioner has also ignored the "Wajib-ul-Arz", which clearly records that "Shamilat" land of the village can be used for grazing of cattle, i.e., a common purpose. The Commissioner has also erred in holding that as the land is "Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Zare Khewat", it cannot be termed as "Shamilat Deh". It is submitted that the words "Shamilat Deh" and not "Hasab Rasad Zare Khewat", denote the common land of a village. The words "Hasab Rasad Zare Khewat" merely denote the manner in which share holdings of proprietors were to be calculated, before the land came to vest in the Gram Panchayat. The learned Commissioner has also recorded a strange finding that private respondents have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession over the land, in dispute.