RAJINDER SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by way of the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seek quashing of the order dated 18.3.2009 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Commissioner-Cum-Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department (respondent No. 1) and the order dated 27.10.2006 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Collector-Cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (East) (respondent No. 2) alleging the same to be against the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, Rs.1961 Act' 1976 (Rs.1976 Act' - for short) and the Punjab Package Deal Property (Disposal) Act, 1976 (Rs.1976 Act' - for short) as also against the provisions of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that the entire population of village Rajewal Rajputan were Mohammedans and they migrated to Pakistan at the time of partition of the Country. Land measuring 1189 bigahas, 17 biswas, 5 biswasis was left behind in the village. Out of the said land 444 bighas 12 biswas 9 biswasis was under the river bed and the remaining land measuring 745 bighas 4 biswas 16 biswasis was 'gair marusi'. Out of the land that was 'gair' marusi'; 374 bighas, 16 biswas and 14 biswas was 'banjar qadim' land and measuring 335 bighas, 15 biswas, 14 biswasis was 'doem'. The land under the river bed was either 'bet burdi' or 'doem'. It is submitted that the entire land was taken over by the Central Government after the migration of Muslims of village Rajewal Rajwal Rajputan. Since most of the land was under river action, it is submitted that the revenue officials in the column of ownership just mentioned the land as 'shamlat deh' i.e. village common land. It is submitted that at the time of partition of the country there was no panchayat in existence. Out of the above mentioned land it has been alleged that some land was allotted to displaced persons and some land remained as it is. After sometime this land was transferred to the Custodian Department vide various notification dated 23.3.1963, 3.6.1961 and 29.3.1963. The property became evacuee property and the Punjab government declared it as evacuee property under the 1976 Act. The department dealing with the evacuee property transferred number of such property in accordance with their policies to various of persons. Virsa Singh, Charan Singh and Karam Singh sons of Bhal Singh etc. were allotted land by the Tehsildar (Sales), Samrala (respondent No. 5 under the 1976 Act. Mutation No. 361 dated 8.6.1976 (Annexure P-1) was sanctioned in favour of aforesaid Virsa Singh, Charan Singh and Karan Singh sons of Bhal Singh. Similarly mutation No. 369 dated 30.8.1977 (Annexure P-2) was sanctioned in favour of Bachan Singh son of Lal Singh on the basis of sale made by Tehsildar (Sales), Samrala (respondent No. 5). A reference is made to the Jamabandi for the year 1971-72 (Annexure P-3) in terms of which it is stated that it has been mentioned that the land of all the residents of the village which is under the river bed has been mentioned in the column of ownership as 'shamlat deh' but in the column of cultivation it has been mentioned as 'makbooza custodian'. The Consolidation Department also, it is stated, allotted land to Sohan Singh son of Karnail Singh resident of village Rajewal Rajputan even though entry in the ownership column is 'shamlat deh'. Land was allotted to Jawala Singh son of Pritam Singh and mutation dated 30.3.1964 (Annexure P-4) was entered in this regard. The names of other persons who have been similarly allotted land were mentioned.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the entire land of village Rajewal Rajputan (respondent No. 3) is 'burji baramadgi' and none of the residents has been shown as owner of the land. In the column of ownership under the rule of 'burji' baramadgi' name of 'shamlat deh' has been mentioned as owner whereas the land in dispute does not at all belong to the Gram Panchayat. It is submitted that the authorities under the 1961 Act have not considered the factual position involved in the case and have decided the case without going into the actual position on record. In fact the land in question and other lands of village Rajewal Rajputan (respondent No. 3) is the ownership of the Punjab Government and falls within the definition of evacuee land but since there was the flow of river through this land, the land of the entire village due to action of 'burji baramadgi' in the column of ownership is recorded as 'shamlat deh'. The land in question in fact vests in the Punjab Government and the Punjab Government has sold part of the land under the 1976 Act through Tehsildar (Sales), Samrala (respondent No. 5) in respect of which mutations have also been sanctioned which is evident from the revenue records (Annexures P-1 to P-4). The land in possession of the petitioner, it is submitted, is identical to the land sold by Tehsildar (Sales), Samrala (respondent No. 5) to different persons of the village under various schemes issued by the Punjab Government under the 1976 Act. The petitioners' father also got some identical land vide mutation No. 334 as has been mentioned by the Patwari in his report dated 8.7.2003. the land regarding which the petitioners' father moved an application, it is submitted, also falls under the evacuee land and the same is liable to be allotted to the petitioners on the basis of their possession after payment of some amount as settled by the Punjab Government. The land in question it is submitted does not at all fall within the definition of 'shamlat deh'.