MOOL CHAND Vs. COMMISSIONER AMBALA DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS giving rise to this writ petition may brief be noticed thus: Respondent-Gram Panchayat filed a petition Under Section 7 (2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act')seeking ejectment of one Bhagat Ram being in unauthorised possession of some land. The petition was allowed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Guhla by order dated 4th February, 1981 whereby Bhagat Ram the respondent therein was given liberty to move a petition Under Section 13-B of the Act within a month of the order to get the question of title to the land settled failing which he was directed to relinquish the possession of the land and if he did not do so, he-will be ejected from the land. Thereafter, Sham Sunder and two others the petitioners in the instant writ petition, filed a suit Under Section 13 of the Act against the Gram Panchayat and Bhagat Ram aforesaid seeking a declaration that the Gram Panchayat had no concern with the land in dispute as it did not fall within the definition of shamilat deh. The suit was decreed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Guhla by judgment and decree dated 29th April, 1982. It was held that the land in dispute was in possession and ownership of Jumla Malkan and Haqdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad Raqba Kliewatdar and the Gram Panchayat had no concern with it. While deciding issue No. 1, it was observed that there was no shamlat deh in the village and thus after imposing a cut on the (land of the proprietors of the village, a separate khata was carved out in the ownership of Mushtarka Malkan and Haqdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewatdar and there was no entry in favour of the Gram Panchayat in the column of ownership. Against the said judgment and decree dated 29th April, 1982, the Gram Panchayat preferred appeal which was allowed by the Collector Kurukshetra by order dated 18th October, 1982 and as a result the aforesaid judgment and decree was set aside. Revision filed by the present petitioners was dismissed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala by order dated 8th February, 1984. Learned Commissioner while disposing of the revision petition noticed that as per the Misal Haqiat prepared during consolidation proceedings, the land in question was taken out of the holdings of the owners at the time of consolidation and was kept apart for being managed by the Gram Panchayat and to utilise the income derived therefrom for the benefit of the community. Learned Commissioner further noticed that during the past two decades the land in question was being used for cultivation by the lessees and there was nothing on record to show that the landowners were realising the rent thereof. Learned Commissioner also noticed that the proprietors of the village handed over the land in question of their own will and secondly, the Gram Panchayat was not given the ownership thereof and was given only a right to manage and use the income for the benefit of the community and to that extent the right vested absolutely in the Gram Panchayat. It is in this situation, the orders Annexures P-8, P-10 and P-11 have been challenged by the petitioners by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE facts as noticed above have not been disputed by the Gram Panchayat in the written statement filed by it. It is rather the case of the Gram Panchayat that there was no shamlat deh in the village and during consolidation proceedings, the proprietors of the village constituted a common khewat of total land measuring 255 Kanals 7 Marias and out of that area 'the Gram Panchayat was in possession of 79 Kanals and 19 Marias and the rest was being used for common purposes, and the land measuring 79 Kanals 19 Marias was under the control of Gram Panchayat and the income derived therefrom was being spent for the benefit of the village.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the learned Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala recorded a categoric finding that the land has not vested in the Gram Panchayat and it was not given to it in ownership by the proprietors but it was given only a right to manage the same and utilise the income for the benefit of the community. In the wake of the above finding, it cannot be said that the land falls within the definition of shamlat deh and vests in the Gram Panchayat. It rather stands established on record that this piece of land was voluntarily placed at the disposal of the Gram Panchayat by the right-holders for management and utilising the income thereof for the benefit of the village community. In that view of the matter, the Gram Panchayat is entitled to remain in possession and utilise the income thereof for the benefit of the community so long as it is entitled to do so and the proprietors of the village or the petitioners are not entitled to its possession from the Gram Panchayat illegally or forcibly. It is for the Gram Panchayat to derive income from this land and utilise the same for the benefit of the community in accordance with law. However, it is clarified that the landowners if legally entitled to claim restoration of possession of the land, may take such steps, but till such time the possession of the land is restored to them, the land shall continue to be in the management and control of the Gram Panchayat and it shall be entitled to utilise the usufruct thereof in accordance with law. Since the authorities under the Act have categorically held that the land in question is not shamlat deh and has thus not vested in the Gram Panchayat, I see no ground to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ petition is consequently disposed of with the observations made hereinabove. There will be no order as to costs.