Balbir Singh and Others vs The Joint Director, Panchayats and Others

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioners Balbir Singh and others claiming themselves to be owner, have directed the instant writ petition to

challenge the impugned order dated 28.07.1982 (Annexure P-2), vide which, they were ejected from the land in dispute by the Collector and

order dated 28.12.1987 (Annexure P-3), by virtue of which, their appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority, invoking the provisions of

Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant writ

petition and emanating from the record is that, Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 3) was the owner of the shamlat land, bearing khewat khatauni

No. 32/78, khasra Nos. 146(0-52-69) to 150(0-52-69), total land measuring 2-63-45 Hectares, situated within the revenue estate of Village

Bishan Nagar Kotla, Tehsil & District Patiala. The petitioners were stated to be in its unauthorized possession. The Gram Panchayat instituted a

petition u/s 7 of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, to evict them from the land in question.

The Collector, after taking into consideration the evidence brought on record by the parties, accepted the ejectment petition and the petitioners

were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the land in question to the Gram Panchayat within a period of 30 days, vide impugned

ejectment order dated 28.07.1982 (Annexure P-2).

Aggrieved thereby, the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed as well by the Appellate Authority, by means of impugned order dated

28.12.1987 (Annexure P-3).

The petitioners still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant civil writ petition, to challenge the impugned orders (Annexures P-2 & P-3)

terming them as illegal and without jurisdiction.

The case set-up by the petitioners, in brief, insofar as relevant is that, although they are in possession for more than 38 years as owner, but the

Gram Panchayat wanted to take forcible possession of the land in dispute. The civil suit for permanent injunction filed by them was decreed by the

civil court, by way of judgment and decree dated 22.12.1975(Annexure P-1), which was stated to have been ignored at the time of passing the

impugned orders by the respondent-authorities. According to the petitioners, that the Gram Panchayat has not got the question of title decided in

its favour. In the absence of which, no ejectment order u/s 7 of the Act could be passed by the Collector. The land in question is described as

''Banjar Qadim'' in the revenue record and was never used for common purpose. It cannot be deemed to have been vested in the Gram

Panchayat. Therefore, the Collector did not have the jurisdiction to pass the impugned ejectment order and same error was repeated by the

Appellate Authority. In this manner, the actions of the respondent-authorities were claimed to be arbitrary and illegal. On the strength of aforesaid

grounds, the petitioners sought to quash the impugned orders (Annexures P-2 & P-3), in the manner depicted here-in-above.

The respondent-Gram Panchayat refuted the claim of the petitioners and filed the written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary

objections of maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioners. The Gram Panchayat claimed that it is the owner

of the land in dispute, however, long possession of the petitioners over it was denied. Their possession is much after the year 1976. The factum of

collusive civil court judgment & decree (Annexure P-1) is acknowledged, in which, Gram Panchayat agreed not to dispossess the petitioners

forcibly. Since, the Gram Panchayat was the owner, so, the petitioners were rightly ejected by the Collector. It will not be out of place to mention

here that the respondent-Gram Panchayat has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main writ petition and prayed for its dismissal.

That is how, we are seized of the matter.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter,

we do not find any merit in the instant writ petition in this context.

What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, shamlat land is governed by the provisions of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)

Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as ""the Act"") and the relevant rules framed thereunder. According to Section 2(g) of the Act, ""shamlat deh

includes lands described in the revenue records as shamilat deh excluding abadi deh; shamilat tikkas; lands described in the revenue records as

shamilat, Tarafs, Pattis, Pannas and Tholas and used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for

common purposes of the village; lands used or reserved for the benefit of the village, community including streets, lanes, playgrounds, school,

drinking wells, or ponds within abadi deh or gorah deh; and lands in any village described as banjar qadim and used for common purposes of the

village, according to revenue records.

Section 7 of the Act postulates the procedure of ejectment of person in unauthorized possession of the shamilat land, whereas Section 11 deals

with the determination of question of title. Similarly, Section 13 bars the jurisdiction of the civil courts in the matters covered under the Act. A

Division Bench of this Court in a celebrated judgment of Tel Ram and others v. Gram Sabha Manakpur and others, 1976 PLJ 628, has examined

the aims and object of the Act and observed as under:--

Village, in Punjab, as in any other State in the Country, has always been an orthodox unit in the life of the people. It is here that a true picture of

our culture and civilisation is available. With a view to promote the Directive Principles of State Policy as enshrined in the Constitution, particularly

for the purpose of preserving and promoting village life, a number of legislative measures have been taken from time to time. One of these

measures finds place in the Punjab Village Common Lands(Regulation) Act, 1961, an Act intended, as stated in the Preamble, to consolidate and

amend the law regulating the rights in shamlat deh and abadi deh. The purpose of the Act was to set at rest all controversies in regard to the rights

of the proprietors and non-proprietors of the village in so far as the enjoyment of the common lands of the village is concerned. As a general rule,

before the coming into force of the Act, the proprietors of the village were entitled to share in the shamlat deh (one of the categories of the

common land), while the non-proprietors had only limited rights, such as, grazing cattle, collecting wood etc., but with the new legislation the land

comprising shamlat deh vests in the Panchayat of the village, which is expected to take steps for the management thereof. In regard to the other

category of common land, i.e., abadi deh, the non-proprietors who occupied such lands and had constructed their dwelling houses thereon, were

granted certain concessions, in that they became absolute owners of the sites underneath their houses. However, in spite of this legislative measure

which is by now about fifteen years old, disputes in respect of common land continue to crop up, and the present is a case of that nature.

Likewise, having interpreted the provisions of Section 2(g) of the Act, it was ruled that all clauses of Section 2(g) are independent of each

other and recourse can be had to any one clause to the exclusion of the other. Once, the case falls under any one of those clauses, that would be

sufficient to bring it within the definition of the word ''shamlat deh''.

Above being the legal position and evidence on record, now the core controversy, which invites an immediate attention of this Court, and that

arises for determination in this writ petition is, as to whether the land in dispute would be deemed to have been vested in the Gram Panchayat

under the present set of evidence or not?

Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, in our view, the answer must obviously be in the affirmative.

Ex facie, the arguments of the learned counsel that, the civil court has already decided the civil suit in favour of the petitioners by way of

judgment & decree (Annexure P-1) and since, the land in question did not vest in the Gram Panchayat, so, the impugned ejectment orders are

illegal, lack merit.

As is evident from the revenue record (Jamabandi for the year 1956-57)(Annexure P-4), the land in dispute has been described as ''Shamlat

Deh Hasb Hasis Shajra Nasab'' and owners were shown in its possession. The kind of land is described as ''Banjar Qadim''. Sequelly, in the

Jamabandi for the year 1976-77 (Annexure P-5), Gram Panchayat has been shown as owner in the column of ownership and petitioner-Balbir

Singh was shown in its forcible possession, without payment of any rent. The perusal of the indicated revenue record would reveal that Gram

Panchayat is owner of the ''Banjar Qadim'' land and the petitioners are in its unauthorized possession. Section 2(g) of the Act defines ''shamilat

deh'' (land), whereas Section 2(g)(1) to (ix) and Section 3 describe the situations of exclusion of ownership of Gram Panchayat of the shamlat

land, where all rights, titles and interest had already been vested before the commencement of Shamilat law. Section 4 of the Act provides the

vesting of land in Gram Panchayats and protection of possession of non proprietors.

A cogent and meaningful reading of Section 2(g), Section 3 and 4 of the Act would reveal that all land described as ''shamilat deh'' came to be

vested in Gram Panchayat and only such ''shamilat deh'' is excluded, from vesting in a Gram Panchayat, if the conditions contained therein are

complete. Therefore, in order to claim the ownership of the land in dispute it was incumbent upon the petitioners to prove by cogent evidence that

the land in question falls within the ambit of pointed exclusion clauses of either Section 2(g), Section 3 or 4 of the Act and not otherwise. They

have miserably failed to prove any of the indicated conditions to exclude ownership of the Gram Panchayat from the land in dispute. In that

eventuality, such land would be deemed to have been vested in the Gram Panchayat by operation of law. Moreover, the mere fact that the land in

dispute has been described as ''Banjar Qadim'' in the revenue record is indicative of the fact that it was not in actual cultivating possession of the

petitioners. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court in cases Gram Panchayat Village Chaura Vs. State of Punjab and Others, and Gram

Panchayat Gulalta Vs. State of Haryana and Others, that such ''Panjar Qadim'' land would not vest in the persons recorded in its possession. On

the contrary, it would be deemed to have been vested in the Gram Panchayat. The ratio of law laid down ""mutatis mutandis"" is complete answer to

the problem in hand.

Similarly, civil court judgment & decree(Annexure P-1), would reveal that petitioner-Balbir Singh has filed a suit for permanent injunction,

restraining the Gram Panchayat from forcibly dispossessing him from the suit land. He had not filed any suit for declaration declaring himself to be

owner of the suit land. During the pendency of civil suit, the parties have compromised the matter, in which, the counsel had stated that the Gram

Panchayat would not dispossess him from the land in question forcibly, except in accordance with law. So, a consent decree was passed on the

assurance that Gram Panchayat would not forcibly dispossess the petitioners and the possession will be taken in due course of law. The civil suit

was accordingly decreed, indeed specifically leaving the question of title open. That means, even since the civil court has not declared him owner of

the suit land, so, the judgment & decree (Annexure P-1) would not come to the rescue of the petitioners in any manner, particularly when the

jurisdiction of civil Court is otherwise legally barred under the Act.

There is yet another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. In the wake of petition u/s 7 of the Act filed by

Gram Panchayat, the impugned ejectment order(Annexure P-2) was passed against the petitioners. Proviso to Section 7 postulates that if after

receipt of the application and before the Panchayat is put in possession of the land or other immovable property in the shamilat deh, a question of

right, title or interest in such land or property is raised by any person and a prima facie case is made out in support thereof, the Collector shall

direct the person who has raised such question to submit his claim u/s 11 and till the question is so determined, the application shall remain pending.

If the person, who has raised the question of right, title or interest, fails to submit his claim u/s 11 within the time prescribed under that Section, the

Collector shall presume that no question of right, title or interest is involved and shall proceed further to put the Panchayat in possession of the land

or other immovable property in the shamilat deh.

Meaning thereby, if the petitioners were claiming ownership of the land in dispute, then indeed they should and ought to have filed their claim

and got decided the question of title over it during the course of ejectment proceedings, as contemplated u/s 7 of the Act. In the absence of which,

the land would be deemed to have been vested with the Gram Panchayat by operation of law. Therefore, it stands proved on record that the Gram

Panchayat was the owner of shamlat land in dispute and the petitioners were in its unauthorized possession. The respondents-authorities have

examined the matter in the right perspective and ordered their ejectment. Such impugned orders, containing valid reasons, cannot legally be set

aside, in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court, unless the same are perverse or without jurisdiction. Since, no such legal infirmity has been

pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining

circumstances of the case.

No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as

there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such.