Gram Panchayat Nurpur Jattan vs Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings and others

J.L. Gupta, J. (oral)

During consolidation proceedings in village Munder Bet, land was reserved for being used for common purposes. As a result pro rata cut was imposed on the holdings of different landowners. Subsequently, respondent No. 2, Rawel Singh felt that the land, which had been reserved for common purposes had in fact not been used for those purposes as such he had been illegally deprived of his share. He had certain other grievances also. As such, Rawel Singh filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). This petition was accepted by the Additional Director vide his order dated March 30,1987. A copy of this order has been placed on record as Annexure P.5. As a result certain area of land was ordered to be restored to him. Aggrieved by this order, respondents No. 3 to 6 moved a petition before the Additional Director stating inter alia that they were the tenants of the Central Government at the time of consolidation proceedings and that no order could be passed without giving them an opportunity of being heard. The matter was considered by the Additional Director. Notice of the application was given to the petitioner Panchayat. The Sarpanch appeared alongwith the counsel. Vide orders dated June 8/9, 1988 the petition filed by respondents No. 3 to 6 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the orders at Annexures P.5 and P.6 the Gram Panchayat has now filed the present petition. The relevant averments made in the petition may be noticed.

It has been averred that land had been reserved for use for common purposes in the village and that it was, "being used for common purposes as defined in Section 2(bb) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948." It has been further averred that the land in dispute was shown in the ownership column of Jamabandi (Annexure P1) as Shamlat Deh BA HISAS JAL LOCAL 10123/126310 share Bar Rakba 314 Kls. 12 M/s. Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat Araji Matrooka 116177, 1263 10 Bar Rakba 4031 Kls. 11 Mls. and in column No. 8 it was shown as Gair Mumkin Charand. In the column relating to cultivation it was shown as Mufid am. The orders at Annexures P.5 and P.6 have been challenged primarily on the ground that these have been passed ex parte; the petition under Section 42 of the Act had been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act and that the findings recorded by the Additional Director are contrary to the evidence on record.

A written statement has been filed by respondent No. 2 only. It has been inter alia averred that the petition has been filed in a mala fide manner just to help respondents No. 3 to 6. It has also been stated that the petitioner has no cause of action as no loss has been caused to it at all. The assertion on behalf of the petitioner that the land is being used for common purposes and is included as Shamlat has been specifically controverted. It has been averred that the land is in fact in possession of various rightholders. With reference to the revenue record, it has been averred, that the land is in illegal occupation of respondents No. 3 to 6 and the Panchayat has taken no steps to eject them. Copies of Khasra Girdawaris have also been produced to show that the land was in fact being cultivated by respondents No. 3 to 6 only. In the column relating to the payment of land revenue, the entry reads as "illegal cultivation." Rest of the averments made in the petition have also been controverted.

I have heard Mr. Rakesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Palli, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Mr. G.S. Nagra, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 6.

A perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P.5) shows that the specific plea raised on behalf of Rawel Singh, respondent No. 2, was that a heavy cut had been applied on the holdings of all the rightholders and sufficient area was left for cattle grazing, but no land was in fact being used for cattle grazing. It has been further asserted that the land was in fact being cultivated by various right holders illegally. On this premises, Rawel Singh had prayed for the restoration of his share of the land to him. The claim made by Rawel Singh was found to be genuine by the learned Additional Director and was as such upheld even after the matter had been reopened at the instance of respondents No. 3 to 6. The claim made on their behalf that they were the tenants of the Central Government was not found to be correct. Even though, Inder Singh sarpanch of the Panchayat was present on behalf of the petitioner before the Additional Director, no contention was ever raised that the land was being used for common purposes or that it was Shamlat which vested in the Panchayat. In fact, the Panchayat never moved the Additional Director in the manner respondents No. 3 to 6 had. Even before me at the hearing, nothing has been produced to show that the land was in fact being used for common purposes. In fact, the stand of the petitioner that the land is being used for common purposes is belied by the entries in the Khasra Girdawaris, which show that the land was being cultivated and paddy and wheat were being grown on the land in dispute. Copy of the Jamabandi for the year 198081 shows that the land was in illegal cultivation of respondents No. 3 to 6. If the land was being illegally cultivated, it could not have been in use for common purposes. Consequently, the contention raised on behalf of the Panchayat that the land had been reserved for common purposes and was being used as such cannot be sustained.

A perusal of the documents on evidence would further show that no part of the land is shown to vest in the Panchayat. It is not even shown to me that Panchayat is in possession of the land. In this situation, I am of the view that the Panchayat had no locus standi to file the present writ petition. In fact, there appears the contention of Mr. Palli that the petition had been filed with an oblique objective to help respondents No. 3 to 6 does not appear to be wholly unfounded. Record shows that no claim was made by the Sarpanch of the Panchayat, even though he was present before the Additional Director before the order at Annexure P. 6 was passed as has been made in the petition now.

In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. The respondent No. 2 shall be entitled to his costs from the petitioner, which are assessed at Rs. 3,000/.