Inder Singh vs State of Punjab

D.S. Tewatia and S.S. Sodhi, JJ.

Petitioner Inder Singh''s application under Section 11 read with section 3 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1961, wherein he had claimed title to land measuring 7 kanals 16 marlas, was dismissed by the Collector vide his order dated 8th September, 1980 (annexure P.2). An appeal against that order was dismissed by the Joint Director, Panchayats Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner) vide his order dated 10th April, 1981. These two orders have been impugned by the petitioner through the present writ petition.

The stand taken by the petitioner before the aforementioned Authorities as also in the present petition is that the land in possession of the petitioner of which he had claimed ownership before the concerned Authorities was part of large area of about 160 kanals, which was reserved by the Consolidation Authorities during the consolidation operations for the income of the Gram Panchayat. The said area had been taken from the proprietors of the village after imposing a cut on their holdings; that the proprietors being small rightholders, no part of her holdings could be taken away and given to the Panchayat without awarding of compensation and, therefore, the Panchayat is not entitled to hold the said area and it is not entitled to lease it out by treating itself to be the owner thereof.

The Collector and the Appellant Authority disallowed the claim of the petitioner herein inter alia on the ground that the petitioner had taken the land on lease from the Panchayat and he could not now turn round to challenge the title of the Gram Panchayat and stop it from reauctioning the land in question.

The petitioner got into possession of the land, in dispute as a successful bidder in the auction and by virtue of the provisions of section 116 of the Evidence Act, the petitioner 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. Since the petitioner had taken the possession of the land from the Gram Panchayat the petitioner had to given back the possession to the Gram Panchayat.

The petitioner neither before the statutory Authorities nor in this writ petition, has furnished any data regarding his proprietorship in the village the measure of the land that he had held and the area that had been taken away from him for the purpose of the income of the Panchayat. So, even if this is assume for the sake of arguments that the land in question forms part of the area that was reserved for the income of the Gram Panchayat and that in law the Gram Panchayat was not entitled to any such area then too petitioner cannot be helped because he has not established that the land which is in his possession either wholly or any part thereof had been taken away from him by the Consolidation Authorities for the purpose of the income of the Panchayat and forms part of that area.

For the reasons aforementioned, we find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same, with no order as to costs.