SHER SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.12.2001 passed by the Collector, whereby the respondent- Gram Panchayat was ordered to recover the lease money for the period 30.4.1993 to 28.8.2000 from the petitioners with regard to the land in dispute; as well as the order dated 12.11.2004 passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat dismissing the appeal of the petitioners against the aforesaid order.

(2.) IN the present case, with regard to the land in dispute, a mutation was entered in favour of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners filed a case before the Director, Consolidation claiming possession and ownership in the disputed land, which was decided in favour of the Gram Panchayat on 4.3.1991. Against the said order, the petitioners filed C.W.P. No. 17077 of 1991. In the said petition, this Court vide order dated 20.5.1992 stayed dispossession of the petitioners subject to the condition that in case the dispute is finally decided in favour of the Gram Panchayat then the petitioners will be liable to pay Chakota to the Gram Panchayat from the date of institution of the petition till the date of disposal of the writ petition. It is admitted case that on 20.8.2000 this Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition while coming to the conclusion that the Director Consolidation has no power to go into the question whether the land in dispute was Shamlat Deh or not or the same does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. It was held that this question can only be decided by the Collector tinder the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In view of the said finding, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the Gram Panchayat to recover the lease money from the petitioners in accordance with the interim order.

(3.) MEANWHILE , the petitioners filed a title suit under Section 11 of the Act against the Gram Panchayat for declaring them as owners in possession of the suit land, though initially the said suit was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 15.6.2001. However, on appeal filed by the petitioners, the order of the Collector was set aside by the Commissioner and the petitioners were declared owners of the suit land while observing as under :