Darshan Singh & Ors vs Director Rural Development & ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 15746 P&H

CWP-20623-2014                                              -1-


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH.

                                          CWP-20623-2014
                                          Reserved on: 02.12.2022
                                          Pronounced on: 05.12.2022

Darshan Singh and others                                     .....Petitioners


                                  Versus


Director Rural Development and Panchayat Punjab and others
                                                    .....Respondents


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Argued by: Ms. Eliza Gupta, Advocate
           for the petitioners.

             Mr. Maninder Singh, DAG, Punjab.

             Mr. C.L.Premy, Advocate
             for respondent No. 3- Gram Panchayat.

                                 ****

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

Factual Background

1. The forefathers of the petitioners were in possession, as

right holders/cultivators, of the petition land bearing Khasra Nos. 706,

717, 803, situated in village Mavi Sapan. The above fact is depicted in

the Jamabandi, qua the petition land, as becomes drawn for the years

1951-52 and 1955-56. The petition land thereins is described as

Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Jar Khewat. The forefathers of the

petitioners were allegedly continuing in possession thereof, as revealed

in the subsequent thereto jamabandis, and, their possession thereons was

allegedly not disturbed at any point of time. Thereafter, Bachan Singh,

forefather of petitioners filed a civil suit before the learned civil Court,

1 of 8

which was decreed in his favour on 18.02.1965. On the basis of the said

decree of civil Court, the forefather of the petitioners were shown to be

owner of the land in dispute hence in the subsequent revenue record, as

carried in jamabandis Annexure P-7 to Annexure P-13.

Petition filed by the Gram Panchayat

2. The Gram Panchayat Mavi Sapan, through its Sarpanch

one Taranjit Kaur instituted a petition on 01.06.1981 against the

respondents/forefathers of the petitioners claiming therein ownership

qua the petition land. The above petition was instituted under the

provisions of Sections 11 and 7 of The Punjab Village Common Lands

(Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter for short call 'the Act'). The

learned Collector concerned through an order recorded on 26.08.1983,

and, as becomes embodied in Annexure P-14, proceeded to allow the

said petition.

3. However, the aggrieved therefrom one Bachan Singh and

Ujaggar Singh, who are forefathers of the petitioners preferred an

appeal thereagainst before the learned Appellate Authority concerned.

The learned Appellate Authority concerned through an order of

09.02.1988, as becomes embodied in Annexure P-15, dismissed the

appeal of the appellants/petitioners herein.

Writ Petition before this High Court.

4. Being dissatisfied by the orders passed by the authorities

below, the forefathers of the petitioners Bachan Singh and Ujaggar

Singh filed/instituted CWP No. 5015 of 1988, titled as 'Bachan Singh

and another Vs. Joint Director and others' hence before this Court.

After hearing both the parties, this Court, through its order made on

26.11.2010, remanded the lis to the Appellate Authority concerned, to

2 of 8

decide afresh, the appeal, but in accordance with law, and, after

recording a finding, whether the decree of 18.02.1965 did become

obtained by collusion or fraud between the decree holder and the then

Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The parties concerned were also

given an opportunity to lead additional evidence in support of their

respective pleas.

5. However, during pendency of the litigation, Bachan Singh

and Ujjagar Singh died, therefore the present petitioners No. 1 to 8

were brought on record as legal heirs of Bachan Singh, whereas,

petitioners No. 9 and 10 were brought on record as legal heirs of

Ujaggar Singh.

Verdict passed by the Remandee Court/Appellate Authority.

6. Through an order, as comprised in Annexure P-17, the

learned Remandee Court, after giving an opportunity to all the litigants

concerned, and, also after perusing all the relevant records, rather

dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants/petitioners herein.

7. The legal heirs of Bachan Singh and Ujaggar Singh, the

petitioners herein become aggrieved from the order made by the

Appellate Authority concerned, as becomes embodied in Annexure P-

17. Resultantly they constitute thereagainst the instant petition before

this Court.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that

since in an earlier lis bearing No. CWP No. 5015 of 1988, this Court

had thereins on 26.11.2010, made a decision, as comprised in Annexure

P-16, wherethrough the land owners concerned were permitted, to lead

3 of 8

additional evidence qua the judgment and decree of 18.02.1965, not

becoming obtained by collusion or fraud, besides irrespective of the

above, a further liberty was reserved qua the petitioners concerned, to

even irrespective of the judgment and decree of 18.02.1965, hence

prove that the lands concerned, did not vest in the Panchayat, nor were

vestable in the Gram Panchayat concerned. She therefore argues, that

the judgments challenged before this Court rather are infirm, as there is

no reference thereins about the judgment and decree, as became

rendered by the Civil Court in the year 1965, nor there is any discussion

about the same not being obtained by fraud or collusion, nor there is

any discussion with respect to lands concerned being not vestable in the

Gram Panchayat concerned. Therefore, she contends that the impugned

verdict requires an interference.

Reasons for rejecting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

9. Before rejecting the above made submission, it is important

to bear in mind, the trite factum, that the petitioners had claimed

ownership in respect of the petition lands, on the basis of their'

forefathers imperatively prior to 26, January, 1950, rather holding

cultivating possession of the petition lands rather described in the

column of ownership, as shamlat deh hasab rasad jar khewat. Thus,

when the above description is assigned to the petition lands, hence does

statutorily save them from vestment in the panchayat deh. Therefore,

the above factual foundation, has led the counsel for the petitioners, to

argue that the petitioners claim against the vestment of the petition

lands, in the panchayat deh, rather was legally sound. Moreover, it has

also led the counsel for the petitioners to further contend, that the

4 of 8

impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside.

10. Now bearing in mind the above, it is relevant to

mention here, that the foundation of the above claim is rested upon the

entry as relates to the petition lands, and, as becomes carried in the

jamabandi prepared prior to 26.01.1950. However, a perusal of the

jamabandis for the year 1951-52 and 1955-56, shows that though

certain khasra numbers i.e. 706 chahi, 717 chahi and 803 Nahri, became

assigned to the lands mentioned therein, but in the subsequent thereto

drawn jamabandis, and, to which Annexures P-3 and P-4 are assigned,

the predecessors of the petitioners though have been shown in the

cultivating column, but in the ownership column thereof, palpably

there exists the entry of shamlat deh. Thus, the impact of the above

entry is that, the ownership of petition lands being validly vested in the

Panchayat concerned. Further, a perusal of Annexure P-17, annexure

whereof is the order of the Appellate Authority, reveals qua an

unrebutted entry, as reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1959-60,

hence becoming detailed thereins, inasmuch as, in the column of rent

thereof, there occurring an entry of 'without paying rent, bewaja kabja'.

Though, as but a natural sequel thereof, the petition lands, if so,

carrying the above entries may not prima facie become saved from

vestment in the panchayat deh, unless evidence surged forth displaying,

that the said entries were unlawfully substituted.

11. However, in case, the said entries were unlawfully

substituted, thereupon, the claim made in the instant writ petition may

succeed.

12. Be that as it may, before proceeding to make any

adjudication upon the above contention, it is necessary to bear in mind

5 of 8

that in the jamabandis, as became drawn subsequent to the drawings of

Annexures P-3 and P-4, whereins, the coinage Panchayat Deh has been

recorded, both in the column of ownership, as well as, in the cultivating

possession of the petition lands. Nonetheless, though, the above

alteration, did happen, but yet evidence was to emerge qua the said

alteration or substitution of the predecessors of the petitioners rather by

the Panchayat, rather being evidently unlawful. The above evidence

though is grossly amiss. However, the above for the reasons assigned

hereinafter, does not at all grant any leverage to the petitioners, to claim

any relief in respect of the petition lands. The reason for forming the

above conclusion becomes embodied in the factum, that the khasra

numbers assigned to the lands as referred in the jamabandis prepared

prior to the year 1956-57, and, also the assignment of khasra numbers

to those lands, as find reflection in the jamabandis drawn subsequent to

the year 1951-52, and, 1955-56, rather conspicuously does not become

cogently substantiated, to be hence reference(s) to the very same or

similar khasra numbers.

12. Moreover, the said purported unauthorized substitution of

the entries from the ones, which occurred in the relevant records prior

to 1956-57, did also reiteratedly require, that the khasra numbers

occurring in the entries prior to 1956-57, were the same as were entered

in the revenue records rather in the years subsequent to 1951-52 and

1955-56. However, reiteratedly the above evidence is amiss. The effect

of lack of above evidence, is that, the entries, if any, in the revenue

records prepared prior to 1956-57, were with respect to those khasra

numbers, which are completely unrelated or are completely distinct

from the khasra numbers, as became assigned to the lands as

6 of 8

mentioned, in the revenue records, as became drawn subsequent to the

year 1955-56. Therefore, when the subsequent thereto entries, rather are

not related to the earlier thereto entries. Thus, they do acquire

conclusive and binding effect nor it can be ever contended, that there is

any unlawful substitution or replacement, rather of the forefathers of

the petitioners, by the Panchayat Deh, in respect of the same or similar

khasra numbers, as became referred in the jamabandis respectively for

the year 1951-52 and 1955-56.

Non production of decree of Civil Court

13. It has also been candidly recorded in the orders challenged

before this Court, that though in compliance with the verdict (supra), as

made by this Court, the statutory authorities concerned, did ask, for

production of the judgment and decree, as made by the learned Civil

Court concerned, for determining whether the said decree is collusive

or fraudulent, but since the above decree was never produced.

Therefore as aptly concluded by both the authorities below, an adverse

inference, that the same was not stained by fraud, rather was amenable

to become drawn. As but a natural corollary, the decree if any, as

rendered by the civil Court concerned, is completely meaningless and

does not at all affect the reflections in the records of rights, whereins,

the panchayat concerned, has been recorded to be the owner of the

petition lands.

FINAL ORDER

14. In consequence, this Court does not find any merit in the

writ petition and is constrained to dismiss it. Accordingly, the writ

petition is dismissed. The impugned orders as made by the Authorities

7 of 8

below are maintained and affirmed.

15. No order as to costs.

(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE

(KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE 05.12.2022 kavneet singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

8 of 8