(1.) Nagar Panchayat, Begowal has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the order, dated 11.2.2003 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, in terms whereof the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 227 min (3K 0M) and 315/1 (1K 0M) has been held to be "evacuee property". It may be stated here that though vires of Section 2(g)(5)(ii-a) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, added vide Punjab Act No.8 of 1995, was also challenged by the petitioner, however, during the course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has given up this challenge.
(2.) Shorn of the details, and in order to appreciate the controversy, it may be stated that the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 227 min, measuring 3 kanal, and 315/1, measuring 1 kanal, situated in village Begowal, District Kapurthala was shown in the revenue record as gair mumkin chhappar (pond) and gair mumkin rudi (dumping place), namely, reserved for 'public purposes'. According to the Gram Panchayat of the village, the aforesaid land being "shamilat deh", stood vested in the Gram Panchayat in terms of section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, however, allotted the said land to one Laxmi Narain on 27.12.1984 by treating it as "evacuee property" , left by the Muslims who had migrated to Pakistan on partition of the country. The aforesaid order was challenged by the Gram Panchayat in a petition under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab who vide his order, dated 8.8.1995 (Annexure P-3) accepted its petition and held that the land in question was 'shamilat deh' and not an 'evacuee property'.
(3.) The order, dated August 8, 1995 (Annexure P-3), was challenged by the allottee (Laxmi Narain) and one of his vendees, namely, Surinder Pal Singh, before this Court in CWP No.17129 of 1996. The Gram Panchayat, Begowal, which, by that time, had been substituted by the Notified Area Committee, was also impleaded as respondent No.3 in the array of respondents. A Division Bench of this Court, vide order, dated January 16, 1997, though declined to interfere in the order dated August 8, 1995 (Annexure P-3), however, disposed of the writ petition with the following observations:-