Gram Panchayat vs State of Haryana and Others

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—These two writ petitions relate to the same subject matter. CWP No. 220 of 1986 is filed by Gram Panchayat Laha while CWP No. 1472 of 1987 is filed by the villagers challenging the orders of Tehsildar Sales vide Annexures P-3, dated 30.1.1985. As both the writ petitions relate to the same subject matter, they are disposed of by the common judgment.

The petitioners in both the writ petitions namely the Gram Panchayat and the villagers are claiming that the lands in dispute are shamlat deh vested in the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, they cannot be allotted to any displaced person. According to the petitioners in both the writ petitions the mutation of the land was effected in favour of the Gram Panchayat by an order of the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Ambala dated 23.4.1985. But according to the respondents, the lands being evacuee property vested in the Central Government/Custodian and they have been mutated in favour of the Central Government by an order dated 30.1.1985.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the lands are Shamlat deh lands and though a sharer of the common property left the country to Pakistan on partition in the year 1947, the lands vested in Gram Panchayat by virtue of the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1961 and that the Supreme Court held that the provisions of Administration of Evacuee Property Act would not be applicable to the lands in question. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur Vs. Malwinder Singh and Others, . There cannot be any doubt that the interest of the evacuees in Shamlat Deh lands came to be vested in the Panchayat alongwith the rights and interests of all others by virtue of the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. In the decision referred to above, the Supreme Court held that the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act would prevail over the Central Act. Therefore, the interests of the evacuee property will vest in the Gram Panchayat. But admittedly, there is a dispute in regard to the title of the dispute property.

According to the learned Counsel for the respondents property is subject to river action and, therefore, the property does not fall within the definition of Shamlat deh. This disputed question of title has to be decided by the authorities on an application filed u/s 7 of the Punjab common Lands (Regulation) Act 1961. This Court cannot order the eviction of the respondents as the High Court will not decide the questions of fact as to whether the land is shamlat deh vested in the Gram Panchayat or not. The learned Single Judge of this Court has decided on 21.9.1994 in C.W.P. No. 4889 of 1986 Gram Panchayat Kathemajra Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, that it is necessary that an enquiry should be held to decide the question as to whether or not the disputed property is Shamlat Deh. This decision of the Single Judge has been upheld in L.P.A. No. 1353 of 1994, wherein the Bench observed as follows :-

"In our opinion the learned Single Judge has rightly given the direction to the appellant to move an application to Collector u/s 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the lands in dispute are shamlat deh. We do not express any opinion about this contention because it would be for the Collector to consider this contention in accordance with law. Letters Patent Appeal to stand dismissed."

There, it is for the Gram Panchayat to move an application u/s 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 for the ejectment of the respondents on the ground that the property now vests in the Gram Panchayat and if the respondents dispute the title of the Gram Panchayat it is for the authorities under the Act to decide the title to the disputed property after recording evidence adduced by both the sides and it is open to the authorities under the Act to decide whether the mutation of the property in the name of the Central Government is correctly done.

In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed with a direction that it is open to the petitioners to approach the authority under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and the said authority shall decide the question of facts and law and dispose of the said application in accordance with law.

Subject to the above observations, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.