NARAIN SINGH Vs. JOINT SECRETARY, PANCHAYATS, PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by Narain Singh, Dharam Singh through his legal representatives, Pritam Singh, Risal Singh, Mohinder Singh and Sulakhan Singh under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned orders, Annexures P-2 and P-4.

(2.) THE facts which led to the filing of this petition are that on 3.4.1967, the petitioners filed a civil suit No. 77 of 1967 in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Ajnala for possession of land measuring 689 Kanal 4 Marla delineated in the heading of the plaint on the ground that they were owners of the said land and that mutation No. 495 sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 3 (referring to the Gram Panchayat of village Kuralian Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar) was illegal and ineffective against their rights. The said suit, after contest by respondent No. 3 and two other defendants, was decreed on 29.4.1968 against respondent No. 3 for possession of the suit land excepting the land measuring 196 Kanal 11 Marla. The suit qua Ajaib Singh and Karnail Singh, defendants was dismissed vide Annexure P-1. In execution of the said decree, the petitioners took the possession of the disputed land on 20.1.1980. An entry in relation to the delivery of possession was duly made in Nakal Roznamcha Vakiati for 1979-80. The aforesaid judgment and decree became final as the respondent No. 3 did not prefer any appeal thereagainst. On 7.8.1980, this respondent moved an application before respondent No. 3 (referring to the District Development Officer, Amritsar) under Section 4 read with Section 2(g)(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the Act'). The same, despite serious opposition and contest to its maintainability, was allowed illegally and without jurisdiction ignoring Annexure P-1, vide order dated 17.11.1981, Annexure P-2, whereagainst appeal, Annexure P-3 was filed. The same was dismissed vide order dated 6.10.1983, Annexure P-4. The impugned orders, Annexures P-2 and P-4 are liable to be quashed on the grounds adumbrated in this petition.

(3.) THE respondent No. 3 Gram Panchayat, has inter-alia pleaded in its written statement, that vide mutation No. 495 dated 18.5.1957, land measuring 988 Kanal was mutated in its favour and ownership vested in it. Later on, the consolidation took place in the village in the year 1961-62. The land in dispute was allotted to the Panchayat for common purposes of the village by the Consolidation Authorities. The area is 'Shamlat Tarf Hinduan' (19 Kanals 14 Marlas); 'Shamlat Patti Uggarsain' (349 Kanals 19 Marlas), 'Shamlat Patti Khan' (1 Kanal). This fact is clear from the Scheme sanctioned and the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings, Amritsar, Annexure R/3/1, the true translation of which is Annexure R/3/1A, which clearly shows that 988 Kanals 8 Marlas of shamlat deh land was transferred in the name of Gram Panchayat vide the above mentioned mutation. From then onwards, the Gram Panchayat became owner of the land and is recorded in the revenue papers. The petitioners in collusion with the Sarpanch of Panchayat, obtained a decree but did not execute the same for a period of nearly 12 years. The possession throughout was with the Panchayat and the same was obtained by the petitioners on 14.9.1980 after filing of the above said application on the basis of the judgment, Annexure P-1 in which the Panchayat did not defend the case. The judgment, Annexure P-1 was obtained without bringing to the notice of the Civil Court the Scheme of Consolidation, Annexure R/3/1. Most of the land is being used for the common purposes of the village and most of the land is Gair Mumkin Nullah, Gair Mumkin Khud, Rasta Havelian, Khewat, Kotha etc. and the possession of the agricultural land is also with the Panchayat. As per Section 4 of the Act, the Civil Court judgment has to be ignored as the land in dispute fulfills all the conditions prescribed in the Act for shamlat deh. The Civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree, Annexure P-1. which was kept concealed. Lastly, it has been prayed that this petition may be dismissed.