JIT SINGH Vs. JOINT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to order dated 31.8.1998, Annexure P-7, passed by the DDPO/Collector dismissing the title suit filed by the Gram Panchayat village Mandlan, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgrah Sahib under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961') as also the appellate order, Annexure P-11, dated 16.2.2001 passed by learned Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab, dismissing the appeal preferred against order dated 31.8.1998 passed by the Collector. It requires to be mentioned here that even though suit was filed by the Gram Panchayat, insofar as the appeal is concerned, it was filed by the petitioners arraying the Gram Panchayat as party respondent.

(2.) THE bare minimum facts of the case that need a necessary mention, as projected in the writ petition, reveal that there was a land described in the revenue records as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Rakba Malkiat in possession of the proprietors of the village. Petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1948') was filed by some of the respondents before the Additional Director, Consolidation seeking partition of the land alleging the same to be the land belonging to the right holders and not the Gram Panchayat. This petition was filed in the year 1995 and it is the case of the petitioners that other right holders of the village, like them, were not impleaded. A favourable order for partition of land came to be passed on 2.5.1996. The order aforesaid was challenged by the Gram Panchayat by filing Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 10264 of 1996 in this Court. It is the case of the petitioners that said writ petition was filed by the Gram Panchayat through Pargat Singh, its Administrator, who was never authorised by any body to file the same. The writ was filed under the signatures of Harbans Kaur and Gurdev Kaur. It is then pleaded that no attorney was given by Shri Pargat Singh to Shri P.S. Majhail, Advocate, to file the petition and, thus, the same was not a writ petition is the eyes of law on behalf of the Gram Panchayat. On 17.5.1997, an affidavit was given by Pargat Singh stating therein that he never engaged any advocate nor filed any writ petition nor the Panchayat had spent any money from the Panchayat funds to file the writ petition. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents by playing fraud upon the Court got the petition dismissed filed by Gram Panchayat. The petitioners then filed application on 19.7.1997 before the Director, Consolidation seeking share in the land as right holders of the village but the said application was dismissed vide order, Annexure P-6 dated 19.7.1997. Order of the Director Consolidation dated 19.7.1997 was challenged by the Gram Panchayat by filing Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 14635 of 1997, which, it is stated, is still pending before this Court. Inasmuch as, question of title was not decided, applications under Section 11 of the Act of 1961 were filed by the Gram Panchayat and the petitioners, respectively, before the DDPO/Collector. Said applications were dismissed by the Collector. Aggrieved, an appeal was filed by the petitioners, which has since been dismissed vide order, Annexure P-11, dated 16.2.2001.

(3.) WHEN this matter came up for motion hearing before the Hon'ble Bench, then seized of the matter, learned counsel representing the petitioners relied upon two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat Nurpur v. State of Punjab, 1997(3) Recent Civil Reports 47 and Gram Panchayat Village Sidh v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, 1997(3) Recent Civil Reports 491 to be contend that the authorities constituted under the Act of 1948 had no jurisdiction to determine the question of title or in other words, as to whether the land belonged to the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of the Act of 1961 or the proprietors of the village, such a question, it is the case of the petitioners, could be determined only by the authorities constituted under the Act of 1961.