Gram Panchayat Godikan vs Financial Commissioner Revenue, Haryana & Ors.

Subhas Mehla, J.

These are two connected civil writ petitions which are being taken up together as they arise out of connected proceedings and involve substantially overlapping questions of law and fact. The petitioner in both petitions is the Gram Panchayat, Godikan. The challenge in both matters arises from proceedings under Section 13-AA of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], and from orders passed by the District Collector, Sirsa, the Commissioner, Hisar Division, and the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana. However, the two petitions relate to distinct parcels of land and different sets of private respondents. For the sake of convenience, the facts are noticed primarily from CWP-22340-2025, relating toto land measuring 10 Kanals 17 Marlas, while the distinguishing facts pertaining to CWP-22468-2025, relating to land measuring 26 Kanals 6 Marlas, shall be noticed wherever necessary.

The writ petitions have been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner seeks, in substance, issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure P-4) passed by the District Collector, Sirsa, in proceedings under Section 13-A of the Act, asas well as the order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana. The challenge in CWP-22340-2025 concerns the proceedings instituted by respondent No.4, whereas CWP-22468-2025 concerns the proceedings instituted by respondents No.4 to 7 in respect of the distinct parcels of land, the title to and character of which are in dispute between the petitioner-Gram Panchayat and the private respondents.

The dispute between the parties concerns land situated in village Godikan, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. In CWP-22340-2025, the proceedings relate to land measuring 10 Kanals 17 Marlas, comprised in Khewat No.633 Min, Khatauni No.836, Rectangle No.118, Killas No.9 (5-0), 10/2 (2-1313), 11/1 (3-4), Kitta 3 as per Jamabandi for the year 2007-08 in respect of which private respondent No.4 asserts his rights. In CWP-22468-2025, the proceedings relate to a distinct parcel of land measuring 26 Kanals 6 Marlas, comprised in Khewat No.633 Min, Khatauni No.838, Rectangle No.118, Killas No.2 (8-0) and 3 (7-0) and Rectangle No.119, Killas No.6 (7-16) and 15 (3-10) Kitta 4, as per Jamabandi for the year 2007-08, inin respect of which private respondents No.4 to 7 assert their rights.

The parties had earlier litigated in respect of the aforesaid land in proceedings under Section 7 of the Act initiated by the petitioner-Gram Panchayat, Godikan. The eviction petition was allowed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Assistant CCollector 1st Grade vide order dated 18.12.2012 (Annexure P-1). The private parties preferred appeals against the aforesaid order before the appellate authority, i.e. the District Collector, Sirsa, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2013 (Annexure P-2). Both the aforesaid orders passed in the proceedings under Section 7 ofof the Act were thereafter challenged before this Court in CWP Nos.23758 and 23759 of 2015, which were decided by a common judgment dated 17.02.2016 (Annexure P-3). This Court declined to interfere with the aforesaid eviction orders and, while allowing the same to stand, observed that the proceedings under Section 7 were summary in nature and that the question of title could be independently established by the concerned party in the pending proceedings under Section 1313-A of the Act.

In terms of the liberty so granted by this Court, the question of title came toto be considered in the proceedings under Section 13-A of the Act in respect of disputed parcels of land. The proceedings culminated in order dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned District Collector, Sirsa whereby the claims of the private respondents were accepted to the extent noticed in the respective orders. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-Gram Panchayat preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, who, vide order dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure P-5), set aside the order passed by the learned District Collector. The said order was thereafter challenged before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana, who, vide order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure P-6) allowed the revision and restored the order passed by the learned District Collector.

It is against the aforesaid orders that the petitioner-Gram Panchayat has approached this Court by way of the present petitions. CWP-22340-2025 pertains to the land measuring 10 Kanals 17 Marlas, whereas CWP-22468-2025 pertains to the distinct parcel measuring 26 Kanals 6 Marlas.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Gram Panchayat submitted that the orders passed by the learned District Collector and the Financial Commissioner are unsustainable. It was contended that the disputed land formed part of Shamilat Deh and that its description as Mushtarka Malkan Hasab Rasad Area demonstrated that the land formed part of the common pool and, consequently, vested in the Gram Panchayat.

Learned counsel further submitted that the private respondents had earlier been proceeded against under Section 7 of the Act and that possession ofof the disputed land had been taken pursuant thereto. It was also submitted that mutation had thereafter been entered in favour of the Gram Panchayat and that the land was subsequently put to auction and leased out by the Gram Panchayat. According to learned counsel, in view of the aforesaid proceedings and the consequential revenue entries and treatment of the land, the subsequent proceedings under Section 13-A of the Act were not maintainable. It was further contended that the private respondents could not, byby way of proceedings under Section 13-A, seek to reopen the matter which had already been adjudicated in the earlier proceedings under Section 7 ofof the Act.

Learned counsel submitted thatat the learned Commissioner had rightly appreciated the material on record and set aside the order passed by the learned District Collector. It was argued that the Financial Commissioner erred in reversing the Commissioner's order and restoring the order off the District Collector. Learned counsel further submitted that the Financial Commissioner had proceeded on an erroneous appreciation of the legal position governing the disputed land and had failed to appreciate the effect ofof the earlier proceedings and the revenue record relied upon by the petitioner-Gram Panchayat.

Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for quashing the impugned orders passed by the learned District Collector and the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana, (Annexure P-4 and P-6 respectively) and for restoration of the order dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed byby the learned Commissioner, Hisar Division.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 in CWP-22340-2025 and respondent Nos .4 to 7 in CWP-22468-2025 opposed the present petitions and supported the order dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned District Collector as well as the order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner. It was submitted that the claims of the private respondents had been rightly adjudicated in the proceedings under Section 13-A of the Act on the basis of the revenue record and other material available on record.

Learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that the disputed land had historically been in the possession and cultivation of the private respondents and their predecessors and that the revenue record, including the Jamabandis for the relevant peperiod, supported their claim. It was submitted that the aforesaid material had been duly considered by the learned District Collector while passing the order dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure P-4). It was contended that the mere description of the land as Mushtarka Malkan Hasab Rasad Area did not, by itself, establish that the land vested in the Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that the claim under Section 13-A of the Act was supported by the historical revenue record, including the relevant Jamabandis, as well as the Scheme Istemal and Khatauni Paimaish relied upon before the learned District Collector. It was contended that the aforesaid material did not establish that the disputed land had been reserved for any specific common purpose. It was, therefore, submitted that the learned District Collector, upon consideration of the aforesaid material, had rightly accepted the claim of the private respondents in the proceedings under Section 13-A of the Act vide impugned order dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure P-4).

Elaborating upon the aforesaid submission, learned counsel submitted that Section 2(g)(viii) of the Act excludes from the ambit of Shamilat Deh land which, though originally Shamilat Deh, had been assessed to land revenue and had been in the individual cultivating possession ofof the landowners before the commencement of the Act, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. It was thus contended that the disputed land could not be treated as land vesting inin the Gram Panchayat merely on the basis ofof its description in the revenue record as Mushtarka Malkan Hasab Rasad Area.

Learned counsel further submitted that the earlier proceedings under Section 7 of the Act were summary in nature and did not finally adjudicate the question of title. Reliance was placed upon the order dated 17.02.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by this Court, whereby the orders passed in the Section 7 proceedings were not interfered with, while liberty was preserved to the concerned party to establish its title independently in the proceedings under Section 13-A of the Act. It was accordingly contended that the subsequent proceedings under Section 13-A were neither barred nor rendered ineffective by the earlier eviction proceedings.

Learned counsel submitted that the learned Commissioner had erred in setting aside the order dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned District Collector by relying upon the judgment dated 07.04.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Through Secretary ToTo Government of Haryana v. Jai Singh and others, 2022 INSC 400, which was then operative. It was submitted that, subsequently, the said judgment was recalled and the Hon'ble Supreme Court finally decided the matter vide judgment dated 16.09.2025. According to learned counsel, the final judgment clarified the legal position governing the character and vesting of land contributed for common purposes and supported the conclusion reached by the learned District Collector. Learned counsel further submitted that the order dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure P-5) proceeded onon the basis of a legal position which no longer held the field, whereas the learned Financial Commissioner, while passing the order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure P-6), had duly considered the historical revenue record and the material relating to the status and use of the disputed land. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner restoring the order of the learned District Collector called for nono interference. Learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the present petitions.

Learned counsel appearing onon behalf of the State was in agreement with the submissions advanced byby learned counsel for the private respondents. He opposed the contentions advanced by petitioner-Gram Panchayat onon the ground that the land in question was not reserved for any common purpose in Scheme Istemal. He further contended that as per the latest judgement of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Jai Singh & Ors. 2025 INSC 1122, lands not specifically reserved for any common purposes inin the scheme, do not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State. Hence, he submitted that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner suffers from no infirmity in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court, and accordingly the order of the Commissioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law given the present legal position governing the subject-matter at hand. Accordingly, learned counsel for the State prayed for dismissal of both the petitions.

Heard and record perused.

The controversy in the present petitions essentially concerns the entitlement of the private respondents to seek a declaration under Section 13-AA of the Act in respect of the disputed land and, consequently, the correctness of the orders passed by the learned District Collector and the Financial Commissioner, particularly in the light of the reasoning adopted by the learned Commissioner while setting aside the order of the learned District Collector.

The main contention on which the petitioner-Gram Panchayat has approached this Court is that the proceedings under Section 13-A of the Act were not maintainable, on the ground that the proceedings under Section 7 ofof the Act had already culminatedd in orders of eviction against the private respondents. The said objection has been contested by learned counsel appearing for the private respondents as well as by the learned State counsel.

The issue, therefore, requires consideration in the context of the proviso toto Section 13-A(1) of the Act, which reads as under:

The earlier proceedings under Section 7 of the Act had culminated in the order dated 18.12.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Assistant Collector 1st Grade, which was upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 31.07.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned District Collector. When the aforesaid orders were assailed before this Court in CWP Nos.23758 and 23759 of 2015, this Court, vide judgment dated 17.02.2016 (Annexure P-3), did not interfere with the orders passed in the eviction proceedings. However, itit was specifically observed that the question of title could be independently established in the proceedings under Section 13-A of the Act as the proceedings under Section 7 were summary in nature.

The proviso to Section 13-A(1) does not, however, bar every subsequent proceeding under Section 13-AA merely because the land had earlier been the subject matter of proceedings under Section 7. The bar operates where, in such proceedings under Section 7, “the question of title has been raised and decided or is under adjudication”.

To determine whether the bar contained in the proviso to Section 13-A(1) is attracted, it is necessary to examine not only the order dated 17.02.2016 (Annexure P-3), but also the orders which preceded it, namely, the order dated 18.12.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Assistant CoCollector 1st Grade and the appellate order dated 31.07.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned District Collector. A perusal of Annexure PP-1 shows that although the respondents had asserted a claim of ownership, the learned Assistant Collector proceeded on the revenue record showing the Gram Panchayat as owner and held the respondents to be in illegal possession. The order further indicates that, if the question of ownership was involved, the same was required to be established in appropriate proceedings under the Act. In Annexure P-2 also, while noticing the respondents' assertion that the land belonged to the joint owners and that they were cultivating it as shareholders, the learned District Collector proceeded on the revenue entries and observed that the question of ownership had not been raised before the Court below. The orders, therefore, dodo not disclose an adjudication ofof the question of title in favour of the Gram Panchayat in the proceedings under Section 7 of the Act.

The aforesaid position is further fortified by the order dated 17.02.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by this Court. While declining to interfere with the orders passed in the Section 7 proceedings, this Court specifically recorded that the proceedings under Section 7 were summary in nature and observed that, since the declaratory proceedings under Section 13-A had been filed, the concerned party could establish its title independently therein. This Court further observed that the findings recorded in the summary eviction proceedings were not per se binding upon the Collector while deciding the title dispute under Section 13-A. Thus, on a conjoint reading of Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3, it cannot be held that the question ofof title had been finally adjudicated in the earlier proceedings under Section 7 so as to attract the bar contained in the proviso to Section 13-A(1) of the Act.

Another point that arises for consideration is whether the conclusion reached by the learned Financial Commissioner vide order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure P-6), in restoring the order dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned District Collector, suffers from any legal or factual infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

To ascertain the same, it is necessary to consider whether, on the basis of the revenue record and other material considered by the learned District Collector, the disputed land falls within the ambit of Shamilat Deh as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act and vests in the Gram Panchayat, or whether the claim of the private respondents is protected by the exclusion contained in Section 2(g)(viii) of the Act.

The District Collector, while adjudicating the claim under Section 13--A of the Act, examined the revenue record and the material relating to the status of the disputed land. InIn particular, the learned Collector considered the relevant Jamabandis, the Scheme Istemal and the Khatauni Paimaish, and recorded findings with regard to the manner in which the land was reflected in the revenue record and whether the same had been reserved for any specific common purpose. The learned Collector ultimately accepted the claim of the private respondents to the extent found established on the basis of the material on record and, inin CWP-22468-2025, decreed the claim to the extent of 25 Kanals 3 Marlas,s, while the remaining 1 Kanal 3 Marlas was held in favour of the Gram Panchayatvide order dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure P-4).

On perusal of the order dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned District Collector, it is evident that the claim of the private respondents was examined with reference to the historical revenue entries as well as the material relating toto the Istemal of the land. The learned Collector noticed that the disputed land had been recorded as Mushtarka Malkan Hasab Rasad Area and specifically considered whether the land had been reserved for any specific common purpose. In this regard, the learned Collector observed as under:

The learned Collector thereafter concluded the proceedings concerning respondents No.4 to 7 in CWP--22468-2025 with the following observations, which also make reference to the connected claim concerning respondent No.4 in CWP-22340-2025:

The reasoning adopted by the learned Financial Commissioner, in our view, appropriately takes into account the material which had weighed with the learned District Collector. The Financial Commissioner did not proceed on the basis that the expression Mushtarka Malkan Hasab Rasad Area, by itself, conclusively determined the character of the land. Rather, the conclusion was reached upon consideration of the historical entries and the material relating to the Istemal and the absence of any reservation of the disputed land for a specific common purpose. The conclusion recorded by the Financial Commissioner, therefore, cannot be said to suffer from any factual infirmity.

The aforesaid findings also assume significance while examining the order dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Commissioner. The learned Commissioner proceeded to interfere with the order of the District Collector primarily on the basis of the legal position as understood from the judgment ofof the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jai Singh (2022 INSC 400). The relevant reasoning recorded by the learned Commissioner is reproduced hereunder:

The learned Financial Commissioner, while considering the revision preferred by the private respondents herein, found the order passed by the learned Commissioner to be unsustainable. The Financial Commissioner noticed, inter alia, the historical revenue entries and the material concerning the status of the land at the time of Istemal, and consequently found no justification to sustain the Commissioner's order setting aside the Collector's decision. The relevant portion of the order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure P-6) reads as under:

A perusal of the reasoning adopted by the learned Commissioner shows that the order dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure P-5) proceeds principally on the premise of the judgment dated 07.04.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014 titled asas ‘State of Haryana Through Secretary ToTo Government of Haryana v. Jai Singh & Ors’ 2022 INSC

At the time when the learned Commissioner passed the said order, the judgment dated 07.04.2022 was operative. However, the said judgment was subsequently recalled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16.05.2024 in Review Petition (Civil) No.526 of 2023, and the appeal was restored for fresh consideration. The final judgment was thereafter rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16.09.2025 in Civil Appeal No.6990 of 2014 reported as 2025 INSC 1122. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that land contributed for common purposes, but not reserved or earmarked for any specific common purpose does not, merely on that account, vest in the Gram Panchayat, and that unutilized Bachat land remains with the proprietors inin proportion to their respective contributions.

The aforesaid legal position lends support to the approach adopted by the learned District Collector and thereafter by the learned Financial Commissioner. In the present case, the finding recorded by the learned Collector, based upon the Scheme Istemal, Khatauni Paimaish and the reports available before him, is that the disputed landwas not reserved for any specific common purpose at the time of Istemal. The learned Commissioner, while setting aside the Collector's order, did not demonstrate from the Scheme Istemal or any other material that the disputed land had, inin fact, been earmarked for a specific common purpose. Instead, the Commissioner inferred such reservation primarily from the nature of the revenue entry and the fact of pro-rata contribution.

In these circumstances, and particularly in view of the legal position subsequently clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the basis on which the learned Commissioner interfered with the order of the learned District Collector cannot be sustained. The learned Financial Commissioner was, therefore, justified in setting aside the order dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure P-5) and restoring the order dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure P-4).

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no legal or factual infirmity in the order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner whereby the order dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Commissioner was set aside and the order dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned District Collector was restored. The findings recorded by the learned District Collector, particularly with regard to the historical revenue entries, the absence of reservation of the disputed land for any specific common purpose and the continued possession of the private respondents and their predecessors, were duly considered by the learned Financial Commissioner and do not warrant interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

Consequently, both the writ petitions are dismissed. The order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana, is upheld. A copy of this judgment/order be placed onon the file of the connected case.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.