NARANJAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The chequered history of the case is that SHO Police Station Sadar Khanna submitted a report dated December, 11, 1993, to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khanna for initiating proceedings under section 145/146 Cr. P.C. with regard to the land measuring 202 acres situate in village Nasrali alleging that there is a dispute between Joginder Singh Sarpanch etc. party No.1 and Niranjan Kumar etc. party No.2 regarding possession of the disputed land and this dispute is likely to give rise to breach of peace. On receipt of this report, S.D.M. issued notice under section 145(1) Cr. P.C. calling upon both the parties to submit their claims with regard to possession of the disputed land. After considering their replies, S.D.M. Khanna came to the conclusion that neither party is in possession of the said land and accordingly attached the said land and appointed Tehsildar, Khanna as receiver. He was directed to attach, the said land, take its possession and thereafter to lookafter the same.

(2.) Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners (party No.2) filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, which was dismissed vide order dated April 28, 1995, holding that the revision against the order dated October 21, 1994, is not maintainable. A brief resume of the past history of the case is that the land in dispute was recorded as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zare Khewat prior to consolidation and it was shown in self- cultivation. In the Sharat Wajib. Ul-Arz there was a clear recital that the land belongs to the proprietors/right holders of the village. Consolidation had taken place in this village in the years 1951-52. During this consolidation title of the disputed land was changed in the name of the Gram Panchayat, but as no compensation was paid by the Gram Panchayat to the proprietors/right holders of the land and it was not acquired for the use of the Gram Panchayat, proprietors/right holders filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (in short the Act). Thereupon Director of Records, exercising the powers of the Director under the Act, vide his order dated June 12, 1992 accepted the petition and amended the scheme. He ordered that the disputed land, which was shown for common purposes be the reserved in accordance with the appendix attached with the Act and the Consolidation Officer was directed to redistribute the land entered in the name of the Gram Panchayat to the right holders by specifying their shares. He was also directed to ascertain whether any piece of land is required for any common purpose of the village as per appendix of the Act. In compliance with this order dated June 12, 1992, the Consolidation Officer, after verifying that no more land was required for common purposes, specified the shares of each

(3.) of the right holders and thereafter the revenue authorities mutated the land in their names on October 21, 1992, vide Mutation No, 3781. In execution of the warrants of possession, possession of the disputed land was given to the petitioners on May 24, 1993, in the presence of police and panchayat. This order of June 12, 1992, was challenged by party No. 2 before the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana, under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The right holders including the petitioners filed CW.P. No. 12824 of 1992 for quashing the proceedings before the DDPO. This Court vide order dated September 21, 1992, stayed the dispossession of the right holders. Auction was also stayed. This stay order was confirmed by this Court later on. Thereafter the DDPO dismissed the petition filed order Section 11.