SHISHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had filed an application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking declaration that the land, which is subject-matter, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat having been defined as "Jumla Mustarka Malkan wa Diggar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Khewat". The parties had been given the opportunity to put up their respective claims supportable by documentary evidence. The Jamabandis for the years 1962-63, 1963-64, 1969-70, 1974-75 and the documents sanctioning mutation No. 3190 Ex. P5, Jamabandi for the years 1979-80, 1984-85, 1989-90, 1994-95, 1999-3000 and Khasra Girdawari for the year 2000-01, had been produced before the learned Collector. The ocular evidence had also been recorded. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Collector has come to the conclusion that the land in dispute had been reflected as the ownership of Nagar Panchayat from 1962-63 and that the Nagar Panchayat has been in possession of the land, which is the subject- matter. The petitioner had not been able to prove his possession prior to January 26, 1950 and further he had not been able to prove that the land in question was the result of pro rata cut from his land. This land had been mutated in the name of Gram Panchayat vide sanctioning mutation No. 3190, duly reflected in the Jamabandi subsequently. This mutation was never ever challenged by anyone and that the land was being given on lease by the Gram Panchayat and the income derived therefrom was being used for the common purposes of the village. The order of learned Collector dated September 28, 2005, was further challenged by way of an appeal before the learned Commissioner, which has been dismissed vide order dated July 8, 2005. Both the orders have been made subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that the status of the land had always been defined as Jumla Mustarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Khewat and that by virtue of a letter issued by the Government, the nature of the land could not have been changed and, therefore, the mutation has been incorrectly sanctioned. He further contends that de hors the sanctioning of the mutation, the status of the land would remain the same. The land would be the land of the right holders and that they would be entitled to the right to the land. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court rendered in re : Mohinder Singh v. The Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and others, 1993(1) RRR 400 (P&H) : 1992 PLJ 711.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has not been able to address meaningful arguments as to why Mutation No. 3190 Ex. P5 sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat, reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 1979-80 had ever been questioned. By filing an application under Section 11 of the Act, the declaration in regard to the land cannot be asked for. There is a proper procedure under the provisions of law for the purpose of challenging the mutation which is sanctioned by the revenue authorities. It is the plea that the mutation was sanctioned on the basis of a letter received from the Government and that this shall not confer the right of ownership in favour of Gram Panchayat. If that be so, the petitioner was well within his rights to have challenged the mutation sanctioned accordingly. Admittedly, the petition under Section 11 of the Act had been filed on February 7, 2002 and that challenge to the aforesaid mutation was never ever made by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has not been able to show as to whether the petitioner is a Khewatdar of the village and has been in possession of the land in question prior to January 26, 1950. The petitioner has also not been able to establish that pursuant to the pro rata cut of consolidation from the lands of the Khewatdars, the Bachat land has come into existence. Learned Collector has come to a categoric finding that the land, which is the subject-matter of challenge, was shown as the ownership of Nagar Panchayat from 1962-63 and that Nagar Panchayat has been in possession of the said land. The mutation sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat having not been challenged, the petitioner is estopped from seeking declaration under Section 11 of the Act. So far as the judgment rendered in Mohinder Singh's case (supra) is concerned, the same is not applicable to the facts of this case as in that case, there is no reference that the mutation was sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat and that it is only on the basis of a letter from the Government the change in the revenue record had been reflected and that the Gram Panchayat had not been able to substantiate its claim in regard to the title accordingly.