GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grouse in this petition as also the claim stands conglomerated with the defence adopted by the respondents. These are so inter-gripped that mentioning of the respective contentions side by side, is neither possible nor desirable. A joint statement of the case to facilitate its disposal would suffice.

(2.) A large chunk of land measuring 2817 Bighas and 5 Biswas was recorded in the revenue papers relating to village Salana Jiwan Singh Wala, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala as shamilat deh. Such entries were available in the Jamabandi for the year 2001-2002 BK (1945-46 A.D.), and Jamabandi for the year 1952-53, available on the file now as Annexures R-2 and R-3. Sometimes prior to the year 1959 consolidation operations took place in the village. Khatoni Istemal. Annexure R-4, was prepared and the entry started showing Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Ragba Khewat. As a sequel thereto, Jamabandi (Misil haqiat) (Annexure R-5) was prepared in 1960-61 whereby the entry was reverted back to Shamilat deh. Significantly in all these documents, the area was shown to be in self-cultivation and possession of the proprietors. Even in various Khatonies, which kept changing numerically on account of the preparation of new Jamabandis, the area in parcels was shown to be in possession of the proprietors. This position is not disputed by either side. Before consolidation operations took place in 1959, the scheme prepared inevitably took stock of the area existing as shamilat deh. Item 11 thereof mentioned that the land likely to be consumed for common purposes, would be taken from those 2817 Bighas 5 Biswas, and then entered in the ownership and possession of the Gram Panchayat.

(3.) It appears that 261 Standard Kanals 13 Marlas were thus retrieved from the said land as it was utilised for common purposes. Had the ear-marking of such an area been not provided in the scheme, a pro rata cut would necessarily have been imposed on the right-holders for the provision of land to be utilised for common purposes. But since land was available as shamilat deh the turn of the right-holders to be touched did not apparently arise. As is the case of the private respondents, a rateable cut was virtually imposed on them, so that in total they were deprived of 261 Standard Kanals and 13 Marlas of land from the respective areas in their possession as reflected in the Jamabandis, and was recorded in the ownership of the panchayat. Regarding the rest of the area, it seems that it continued to be recorded as shamilat deh and in respective possession of the proprietors. The private respondents in a bunch, more or less in a representative capacity, years later filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh, challenging the pro-rata cut in the shamilat deh area.