Telu Ram vs State of Punjab and Others

Ajai Lamba, J.—Facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition are that Telu Ram, Petitioner filed an application u/s 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (for short, ''the Act'') claiming certain property in his cultivating possession since before the year 1940. For claiming relief, certain revenue record was placed on record that has been placed on record of this writ petition as Annexure P-1 to P-9.

2 The application of the Petitioner has been dismissed by the Collector, Rupnagar, however, after taking into account the revenue record produced on behalf of the Petitioner.

Petitioner carried an appeal to Director, Rural Development & Panchayat Department. The appeal has been dismissed. In operative portion of the order, it has been said that "after perusing the documents on file and the record received from the lower Court, it has been found that the Appellant has never produced any record to prove their possession before 26th January 1950". Reference to the revenue record has not been made even in the body of the order.

Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3, Gram Panchayat, has not been able to justify the legality of the order. Although it has been contended that the revenue record produced by the Petitioner is de hors the controversy in so much as it relates to a different patch of land, on perusal of jamabandi for the year 1934-35 and jamabandi for the year1955-56, placed on record as Annexure P-2 andP-3, it could not be disputed that Khasra No. 1524is one of the Khasra numbers/ land in dispute.

Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3contends that the entire revenue record from 1967onwards has been produced to show legal position of the Petitioner and to establish the title of the Gram Panchayat. Learned Counsel, in this backdrop of facts, contends that the most relevant documents have been taken into account while passing the order.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that because a specific argument had been raised on behalf of the Petitioner before the appellate authority, relying on certain documents and from the language of the impugned order, Annexure P-5, it appears that the documents have been considered however no reference to the documents has been made, I feel that order is not tenable in law. The revenue record produced by the Petitioner was required to be considered in context of the entries recorded therein and thereafter order could have been passed.

The petition is accordingly allowed. Order Annexure P-5 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court of Director, Rural Development & Panchayats Department, Punjab, to re-adjudicate the issue after considering the documents placed on record by both the parties and making a reference thereto.

This order shall not in any way mean that the documents produced by the Petitioner have been considered by this Court to say that the Petitioner has a better right. The appellate authority would be at liberty to pass orders in accordance with law. The parties shall put in appearance before the Director, Rural Development & Panchayat Department, Punjab, on 7.2.2011.