SHERA Vs. DIRECTOR, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition is to an order passed by the Director, Rural Development & Panchayat Department, exercising the powers of the Commissioner on 18.03.2013 (Annexure P-8) affirming the order dated 21.12.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Collector -cum- Divisional Deputy Director, Panchayats, declaring the Panchayat to be the owner of land in dispute.

(2.) The Panchayat filed a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') claiming its ownership over the land bearing Khewat No.279, Khatauni No.490, Khasra No.55//16(8-0), 24(8-0), 74//5(8-0), 58//11(8-0), 59//26(0-13), 59//17/1(6-0), total measuring 38 kanals 13 marlas situated in village Balbera, Tehsil & District Patiala in the case of the present petitioners apart from some other petitions in respect of other persons relating to separate parcels of land. The Panchayat claimed to be owner of the land, which is a shamlat deh in its possession prior to 1950. The Panchayat is said to have given the land in question to the present petitioners on lease, but after the expiry of lease, the possession was not delivered. It was also asserted that the present petitioners in collusion with the officials of the Revenue Department have taken loan from the Punjab National Bank against the land owned by the Panchayat. It is also pleaded that the land was Banjar Kadim on 09.01.1954 and was made cultivable by the Panchayat after spending huge amount and given on lease. The land was shamlat deh prior to the commencement of the Act and continuous to be owned by Panchayat even after consolidation. In reply, the ownership and possession of the Panchayat was denied. It was asserted that the land has never been used for common purposes and that the present petitioners have a right to take loan or to alienate the same, as the Panchayat has no concern with this land. It is also pointed out that the Panchayat had earlier filed a petition under Section 7 of the Act, which was dismissed on 30.05.1997. Therefore, the present petition filed on 24.05.2004 is barred by limitation, as the same could be filed only up to 30.05.2000.

(3.) The learned Collector considered the order (Ex.R-2) dated 19.11.1966 in proceedings under Section 7 of the Act, wherein a finding was returned that possession of the present petitioners was not unauthorized. The petitioners also relied upon jamabandi Ex.R-1 for the year 2003-04, wherein the petitioners were recorded as owner of the suit land. Considering the entire evidence led by the parties, it was found that from the jamabandi for the year 1998-99, that shamlat deh is recorded as the owner of the land though in Column of Cultivation, name of the present petitioners is mentioned. In Column No.12, the land is shown to have been mortgaged with the Bank. Kumar Vimal The Gram Panchayat was ordered to get the question of title decided from the competent Court vide order dated 30.05.1997 (Ex.R-5). In view of the fact that the Panchayat is recorded as owner of the suit land, the question of title was decided in favour of the Panchayat.