Gram Panchayat vs Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings and Others

M.L. Singhal, J.—This judgment will dispose of CWPs No. 804 and 8609 of 1996. Facts are taken out of CWP No. 804 of 1996 titled Gram Panchayat, Billpur, Tehsil and District Kapurthala v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar.

Vide order Annexure P4, Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar-respondent No. 1 ordered that Baldev Singh-respondent No. 2 shall remain tenant on the Khasra numbers mentioned in the record under the share of the Central Government and qua Baldev Singh, he remanded the case to Consolidation Officer with the direction that he should thoroughly scrutinize the record and determine the share of local malkans and that of Central Government and correct the revenue record accordingly. Gram Panchayat of village Billpur has prayed for the quashing of this order and has sought the issuance of proper writ, order or direction as deemed proper.

Consolidation of holdings took place in village Billpur in the year 1959- 60. Consolidation authorities became functus officio after the consolidation of holdings had taken place. Khasra Nos. 173 min (3-10), 174 min (6-0), 181 min (3-4), 182 min (6-0) total measuring 24K-16M was the ownership of the Gram Panchayat and entry was recorded in the Jamabandi, Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat. In Jamabandi Annexure P1 for the year 1992-93, Baldev Singh was shown as the lessee of the Gram Panchayat. Baldev Singh look the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat in the year 1983. He was ordered to be ejected by the order of District Development and Panchayat Officer, Kapurthala dated 29.8.1990. Baldev Singh filed civil suit which was dismissed on 9.6.1994. Baldev Singh thereafter filed petition u/s 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1961) in the Court of District Collector, Kapurthala. In response to the receipt of notice of that petition, Gram Panchayat appeared before the District Collector and filed written statement. District Collector vide order Annexure P2 found that Baldev Singh was in unauthorised possession of the land for the last 2 years and damages to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per year was imposed upon him for being in unauthorised possession of land. Petition was dismissed vide order dated 31.3.1995. Baldev Singh filed CWP 4974 of 1995, while concealing the facts, stating that the District Collector has taken the cases from the Court of District Development and Panchayat Officer for deciding the cases himself and he had no power to decide those cases. Gram Panchayat appeared before this Court and filed written statement stating that Baldev Singh was lessee of the Gram Panchayat and the District Collector had decided the case on 31.3.1995 and the order of the District Collector was appealable. Division Bench disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 17.7.1995 Annexure P3 observing that the order of the Collector was appealable and that the petitioner-Baldev Singh should pursue alternate remedy and the Gram Panchayat shall not take any objection as to limitation. Baldev Singh also filed petition u/s 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 before the respondent No. 1. He took this plea in that petition that he was in possession of the land in dispute since prior to 1950 and the Gram Panchayat was threatening to dispossess him and that the land was either vesting in him or in the Central Government and the Gram Panchayat had no concern with the land. Gram Panchayat appeared before the respondent No. 1 and took the plea that the land was being leased by them (Gram Panchayat) and that the Central Government had not filed any petition and that Baldev Singh was neither owner nor proprietor in the village at the time of consolidation of holdings and as such the petition was not maintainable. Respondent No. 1 did not call for the records and accepted the petition vide the impugned order Annexure P4 and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer with the direction that Baldev Singh who was tenant on the Khasra numbers mentioned in the record should remain as tenant under the share of the Central Government. It is averred by the Gram Panchayat in this writ petition that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to entertain petition u/s 42 of the Act, 1948 when Collector had already held that the Gram Panchayat was the owner of the land and that the entry in Jamabandi Annexure P1 was "Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat". Baldev Singh was ordered to be ejected by the District Development and Panchayat Officer. Civil suit filed by him also failed. District Collector also decided against him in petition u/s 11 of the Act of 1961 and Baldev Singh is in appeal before Joint Development Commissioner. Baldev Singh was tenant of the. Gram Panchayat and as such he could not question the title of the Gram Panchayat. If he wanted to question the title of the Gram Panchayat, he could question the title of the Gram Panchayat but after surrendering possession to the Gram Panchayat. Petition filed by Baldev Singh u/s 42 of the Act, 1948 suffered from inordinate delay inasmuch as it was filed in the year 1994 when the consolidation proceedings had taken place in 1959-60. On this short/ground the respondent No. 1 should have dismissed that petition. Order Annexure P4 is bad inasmuch as it goes against the order of District Development and Panchayat Officer dated 29.8.1990, it goes against the order of the civil Court dated 9.6.1994 and it goes against the order of the District Collector dated 31.3.1995 and further order Annexure P4 was passed by the respondent No. 1 when the true facts had not been brought to his notice.

Respondent No. 2-Baldev Singh opposed this writ petition urging that the case has been remanded to the Consolidation Officer with the direction only that he should scrutinize the record and determine the share of the local malkans and that of the Central Government and may correct the revenue record accordingly after hearing everyone interested and this writ petition is premature. Land prior to the consolidation was entered as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat meaning thereby that the entire proprietary body was owner thereof per their shares in the entire village. When the consolidation took place, land was in possession of the right holders. In Jamabandi, Bhagat Singh father of Baldev Singh was shown as the allottee sakan deh cultivating the land. Gram Panchayat did not become owner by the mere fact that it was leasing out. Collector could not decide the petition u/s 11 of the Act, 1961 regarding unauthorised possession. Civil suit was dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction.

In CWP No. 8609 of 1996, Baldev Singh has prayed for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to hold auction of the land fixed for 8.6.1996 as the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar vide order Annexure PI has held that the Gram Panchayat is not the owner. Respondents opposed this writ petition.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in both these writ petitions and have gone through the record.

Baldev Singh was chakotedar of the land entered as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat in the column of ownership. In the petition u/s 11 of the Act, 1961, the District Collector found that Baldev Singh was in unauthorised possession of the land for the last 2 years and as such he would pay damages @ Rs. 15,000/- per year to the Gram Panchayat. Baldev Singh was ordered to be ejected. Baldev Singh had no right to question the title of the Gram Panchayat when he had been inducted into possession of the land by Gram Panchayat. Baldev Singh was ordered to be ejected vide order dated 29.8.1990 by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Kapurthala. It was held in Inder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 1987 P.L.J. 614, that where a person had got into possession of the land as a successful bidder in the auction, he is not entitled to challenge the status of the Gram Panchayat in regard to its right to possess it and auction it to whomsoever it likes in view of the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act and since he had taken possession of the land from the Gram Panchayat, he had to give possession back to the Gram Panchayat.

Since the petitioner was chakotedar under the Gram Panchayat and had taken possession from the Gram Panchayat, he is estopped from denying the title of the! Gram Panchayat and set up title in himself or in anybody else. He can deny the title of the Gram Panchayat and can set up title in himself or in somebody else only after he surrenders possession to the Gram Panchayat.

In this view of the matter, CWP 804 of 1996 succeeds and is allowed. CWP No. 8609 of 1996 fails and is dismissed.