Shatan Singh vs Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.

The petitioners have challenged the legality and validity the orders Annexures P1 to P3 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Bhiwani (exercising the powers of Assistant, Collector Ist Grade, Bhiwani) dated 11. 11. 1986, the Collector dated 5.5.87 and the Commissioner, Hissar Division, Hissar, dated 4.7.1989 respectively, dismissing the suit of the petitioners under Section 13A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). The facts of the case, in brief, may be noticed, in the first instance, in order to appreciate the questions involved in the petition.

The petitioners filed a suit under section 13A of the Act for a declaration that they are the owner in possession of the land measuring 35 Kanals 8 Marlas comprising of Killa Nos. 194(160), 196(80), 199(712) and 204(416) entered in the Jamabandi for the year 197576 situated in village Kaila, tehsil and District Bhiwani. It is the case of the petitioners that Mutation No. 344 sanctioned on 22.8.64 mutating the aforementioned land in favour of the Gram Panchayat is illegal, void and not binding on the rights of the petitioners. The Gram Panchayat, while defending the suit stated in the written statement that the land was being used for common purposes of the whole village and that the mutation was rightly sanctioned. The suit of the petitioners was stated to be barred by time. On the basis of the pleas taken by the parties, the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) struck the following issues:

Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the land in dispute ? If yes, then what is the effect ? OPP.

Whether Mutation No. 344, dated 22.8.64 is against law and facts ? OPP

Whether the suit in the present form is maintainable ? OPD.

Whether proper court fee has been affixed on the plaint ? OPD.

Whether the suit has been filed with a view to harass the Panchayat ? OPD.

Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD.

Whether the plaintiffs are not entitled to file the present suit ? OPD.

Whether the necessary parties have been impleaded or not ? OPD.

Under issue No. 1, it was held by the Assistant Collector that the petitioners are not in possession of the land in dispute which was owned by the Gram Panchayat. Under Issue No. 2, it was held that the suit was barred by time as the petitioners were not in possession of the disputed land. It was further held that the land in dispute was being used for common purposes of the village as a whole and comes within the definition of Shamlat deh. The suit was held to be not maintainable under issue No. 3. Issues Nos. 4 and 5 were not pressed by the law officers and, therefore, decided against the Gram Panchayat. Issue No. 6 was decided against the petitioners. Under Issue No. 7 it was held that even if the mutation was taken to be wrong the plaintiff, were unable to prove themselves to be the owners of the land in dispute.

In appeal, the Collector Bhiwani affirmed the findings of the Assistant Collector on relevant issues. The petitioners still feeling aggrieved against the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, which has been dismissed. Dissatisfied with the aforementioned orders of the authorities below, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. I.S. Balhara has argued that the possession of the petitioners is established from the oral as well as documentary evidence on the record of the case. In particular, reference was made to the statement of Jaga Ram, Panch who had deposed in his statement that the land in dispute was in the name of the Panchayat but the petitioners have put heap of cowdungs on the land which was being used as such for the last about 3040 years. The precise argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that once the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute is established and that too for a long time any exparte mutation does not make the Gram Panchayat the owner of the disputed land. He has relied upon Kala Singh v. Commissioner, Hisar Division and others, 1984 P.L.J. 169; Atma Ram v. Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab and others (sic); Ram Chander v. Datar Singh, 1988(1) RRR 584 (FC) : 1988 P.L.J. 34 and Jagir Singh v. Gram Panchayat village Mirajpur and others, 1989(2) RRR 385 (P&H) : 1989 P.L.J. 494.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned orders, this Court is of the firm view that the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below are unexceptional. It has been found as a fact by the authorities below that the Grain Panchayat is entered to be ownerinpossession in the jamabandi Exhibit P4. It has further been found by the Assistant Collector and which finding has not been disturbed by the Collector and the Commissioner that if anbody has taken possession of the site by placing cowdungs heaps, the same wouldbe unauthorised. It is further the finding of the Assistant Collector that even if mutation was wrongly sanctioned, it wouldnot make any difference because the petitioners have not been able to prove that they are the owners of the disputed land. In view of findings recorded by the Assistant Collector which findings have been affirmed by appellate and revisional authorities, the case law cited by the counsel for the petitioners can be of no help to the petitioners because the land falls within the definition of Section 2G of the Act. The land is banjar qadim and is meant for common use of the whole village. The concurrent findings of all the authorities is based upon good evidence which requires no interference in writ jurisdiction.

For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.