AJIT SINGH Vs. JOINT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by way of the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, prays for the quashing of the order, passed by the Divisional Deputy Director-cum-Collector, Amritsar dated 13.3.2003 (Annexure P-6), and the order, passed by the Joint Development Commissioner, dated 8.12.2004 (Annexure P-7).

(2.) THE petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 claiming therein that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 37//11(7-12), 20/1(6-7), 38//16/1(7-8) and 25/2(7-8) was in the ownership of Mushtarka Malkan Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewatdar and, therefore, could not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Mutation No. 2458 was sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat in the year 1967, on the basis of letter No. 1096-1105, dated 4.5.1965, issued by the Government. It is contended that the revenue record shows the consistent possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute and, therefore, the Gram Panchayat could not have been held to be the owner of the land in dispute.

(3.) THE Divisional Deputy Director-cum-Collector, Amritsar, as also the Joint Development Commissioner have returned findings of fact that the petitioner was a tenant, on payment of rent, the landlord being the Gram Panchayat. These findings of fact are supported by the jamabandis for the years 1971-72 (Annexure P-4), 1976-77, 1981-82, 1986-87, 1991-92 and 1996-97 (Annexure P-5 collectively). In column No. 4, the Gram Panchayat is recorded as the owner of the land, in the column of cultivation, the petitioner is shown as "Gair Marusi", column No. 9 of these jamabandis contains an entry of rent @ Rs. 550/- per annum. These entries are supported by the resolutions of the Gram Panchayat, exhibited as Annexures R-11 to R-21 before the Collector, leasing out land to the petitioner. Receipts evidencing the payment of rent have also been tendered and exhibited before the Collector. The entries in the jamabandis read with the resolutions of the Gram Panchayat, as also the receipts lead to only one incontrovertible conclusion, namely, that the petitioner was a tenant over the land in dispute.