KASHMIR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. JOINT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The documents filed by the State of Punjab i.e. details of Shamilat land and land recorded in the name of 'Jumla Malkan Hasab Rasad Khewatdar as per Jamabandi for the year 1964-65 which are filed in compliance to the order dated 2.9.2005 passed by this Court are taken on record.

(2.) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 8.10.1998 (Annexure-P.5) passed by the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD), Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent No. 1) and the order dated 27.3.1998 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer ('DDPO - for short)-cum-Collector, Amritsar (respondent No. 2) whereby the declaration sought by the petitioners claiming the ownership of the land in question has been declined and the ownership of the same has been found to be that of Gram Panchayat Budha Theh, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar (respondent No. 3).

(3.) The case of the petitioners is that they are right holders of Village Budha Theh, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar and are owners in possession of the land in dispute as detailed in para 2 of the petition situated in the said village. It is stated that the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 3) in the year 1965 at the back of the petitioners got mutation in respect of the land entered in its favour which does not confer any right on it. The said mutation, it is stated, has been sanctioned on the basis of a letter issued by the Punjab Government which has no legal value in the eyes of law and the ownership of the land cannot be transferred or changed in such a manner which is opposed to law of the land. The land in dispute, it is stated, was neither acquired by the Government nor any compensation was paid to the owners. The mode of transfer, it is alleged, is unknown to law and as such the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 3) is not the owner of the land and thus has no right or title to dispossess the petitioners who are in possession being the right holders of the village. In the year 1989, the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 3) threatened to dispossess the petitioners forcibly and illegally and they were left with no option except to approach the civil court. The petitioners filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 3) which was decreed in their favour vide judgment and decree dated 28.5.1992 (Annexure-P.8) and the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 3) was restrained from dispossessing the petitioners except in due course of law. The said judgment, it is stated, clearly reveals that the petitioners are in possession and that they cannot be dispossessed from the land in dispute except in due course of law. The petitioners, therefore, filed a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 ("1961 Act -for short) for declaring them to be the owners of the land in dispute. The said petition was contested by the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 3). The petitioners, it is stated, filed detailed written arguments as well but the DDPO-cum-Collector (respondent No. 2), who was none else but an officer of the Panchayat wrongly and illegally ignored the evidence produced by the petitioners and the written arguments and vide his order dated 27.3.1998 (Annexure-P.1) dismissed the petition. The petitioners aggrieved against the said order filed an appeal before the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) (respondent No. 1). In the meanwhile the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 3) passed a resolution on 16.9.1998 (Annexure-P.2) for taking possession of the land in dispute under the garb of the order dated 27.3.1998 (Annexure-P.1) in which no order of ejectment had been passed. The dismissal of the petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, it is stated, does not confer any right on the Gram Panchayat (Respondent No. 3) to dispossess the petitioners. However, the Gram Panchayat is taking law in its own hands and is trying to dispossess the petitioners forcibly and illegally. The DDPO-cum-Collector (respondent No. 2), it is alleged, without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without giving any opportunity of hearing arbitrarily, illegally and against law passed the order dated 22.9.1998 (Annexure-P.3) and directed the Tehsildar Baba Bakala to take possession of the land. The Kanungo also, it is alleged, wrongly and illegally vide letter dated 25.9.1998 (Annexure-P.4) directed the petitioners to remain present on 28.9.1998 at the spot for delivering the possession. The petitioners filed a writ petition (i.e. C.W.P. No. 15963 of 1998) in this Court challenging the order dated 22.9.1998 (Annexure-P.3). Notice of motion was issued in the said writ petition and status quo regarding possession was ordered to be maintained. The petitioners also filed C.W.P. No. 15501 of 1998 in this Court seeking mandamus/directions to the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) (respondent No. 1) and further prayed regarding dispossession of the petitioners. This Court vide order dated 29 9 1998 directed the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) (respondent No. 1) either to decide the application for stay or to decide the appeal and stayed the operation of order dated 27.3.1998 passed by the DDPO-cum-Collector, Amritsar (respondent No. 2). The Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) (respondent No. 1), it is stated, has wrongly and illegally and without summoning the records dismissed the appeal on 8.10.1998 (Annexure-P.5) in limine. Thus a challenge has been made to the impugned orders dated 8.10.1998 (Annexure-P.5) and 27.3.1998 (Annexure-P.1).