Kallattar Singh (since deceased) through L.Rs. and Others vs The Commissioner

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—In the present writ petition, the Petitioners have challenged the order dated 31.1.1983 passed by the Assistant Collector (Ist Grade), Thanesar, whereby the title suit filed by them u/s 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), as applicable to the State of Haryana, was dismissed

The Petitioners are some of the proprietors of Village Mandi. In the said village, during the consolidation of land holdings in the year 1955- 56 under the Scheme of Consolidation, some land of the village was kept reserved for common purposes of the village, like ''Charand'', cremation ground, ponds, school, playground, wells, public thorough fares, etc. At that time, two ''Charand''s, one on the South of the village measuring 174 Kanals 17 Marias to serve the proprietors of the village, who also owned agricultural land in village Lukhi and residing there

The said suit was contested by the Gram Panchayat by claiming that during the consolidation the land in dispute was reserved for ''Charand'' for common purposes of the village for grazing the cattle. According to the Sharat- Wazibul-Arz for the year 1955-56 prepared during the consolidation, the land reserved for ''Charand'' was to be used by the proprietors as well as non- proprietors for grazing their cattle. Therefore, it was specifically denied that the ''Charand'' in question was exclusively reserved for grazing the cattle of the proprietors only. Thus, according to the definition or Section 2(g) of the Act, such land, which was reserved during the consolidation for the common purposes of the village, absolutely vests in the Gram Panchayat.

The Assistant Collector (Ist Grade), Thanesar, after taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, dismissed the suit of the Plaintiffs/Petitioners while coming to the conclusion that the land in dispute was reserved during the consolidation for ''Charand'', which is a common purpose and such land falls under the definition of Shamilat deh as defined u/s 2(g) of the Act and vests in the Gram Panchayat.

Against the aforesaid order, the appeal as well as revision filed by the Petitioners were also dismissed and the order of the Assistant Collector (Ist Grade), Thanesar was upheld. Hence, this writ petition.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned orders as well as documents annexed with the petition and written statement.

Undisputedly, at the time of consolidation of holdings of land in village Mandi held in 1955-56, the land in dispute, i.e., measuring 174 Kanals 18 Marias was reserved as ''Charand'' for grazing the cattle. At that time, two ''Charand''s in the village land were reserved, one comprising of land measuring 174 Kanals 17 Marias situated in South of the village and the other measuring 174 Kanals 18 Marlas comprising in Khewat No. 131/127, Khatauni No. 242 (which is in dispute in the present writ petition), on the North of the village. As per the document Sharat-Wazibul- Arz of village Mandi, which is available on the record as Annexure R2/1 with the written statement filed by Respondents No. 2 and 9, the ''Charand'' comprising land measuring 174 Kanals 17 Marias was reserved for proprietors of village Lukhi and the second ''Charand'' comprising land measuring 174 Kanals 18 Marias (which is in dispute in the present writ petition), was reserved for remaining proprietors of the village. It has also been observed that the Khatas of two ''Charand''s has been prepared separately in which there is no right to proprietors for grazing their cattle in each other''s ''Charand''. However, it has been specifically mentioned that non- proprietors can graze their cattle without obstruction. It has also been specifically mentioned that no shareholder shall be competent to bring it under cultivation or his possession. The conditions of Sharat-Wazibul-Arz clearly indicate that the aforesaid land was reserved for ''Charand'' for grazing the cattle in which non-proprietors can also graze their cattle with a specific rider that no shareholder can bring the said land under cultivation or his possession. In the revenue record, since 1955-56 the land in dispute has been recorded as ''Charand''. However, in the column of owner-ship, instead of Shamilat deh by Hissa Malkan, it has been recorded in the name of the shareholders of the village with their shares. In my opinion, keeping in view these facts mentioned in the revenue record and the documents available on the record, the Authorities under the Act have rightly come to the conclusion that the land, which was reserved during the consolidation for common purposes of the village, and described as ''Charand'' in the revenue record, rightly vests in the Gram Panchayat in view of Section 2(g) of the Act which provides that the ''Shamilat deh includes lands described in the revenue records as Shamilat deh or Charand excluding abadi deh'' and such land vests in the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of the Act. In my opinion, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the land in dispute was exclusively used for grazing their cattle by the proprietors as there were no non-proprietors in the village, therefore, the same does not vest in the Gram Panchayat, neither finds support from the conditions mentioned in the Sharat- Wazibul-Arz, as reproduced above, nor it can be said that there were non- proprietors of the village, therefore, it was reserved for the exclusive use of the proprietors. In the Sharat-Wazibul-Arz for the year 1955-56 prepared during the consolidation proceedings, it has been categorically stated that nonproprietors can graze their cattle without obstruction. This itself indicates that in the village there were non-proprietors, who have been given the right to graze their cattle in the land in dispute. The ''Charand'', which was reserved for the benefit of the village community, cannot be given restricted meaning while interpreting that the land was reserved in the village only for the proprietors and for none else. The Petitioners cannot take any benefit for existence of their names/Petitioners'' ancestors'' names along with their shares in the column of ownership in the revenue record, i.e., Jamabandi for the year 1955-56 because it is an admitted position that during the consolidation, the land reserved for ''Charand'' was to be used by the proprietors as well as non-proprietors and such land vests in the Gram Panchayat.

In view of the aforesaid legal position, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Authorities below.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.