A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) (6) (For Haryana) – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 14, 18, 20, 23-A, 24 – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, Rules 5, 7, 16(ii) -- Shamilat deh – Conclusion “(i) sub-section (6) of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and the explanation appended thereto, is only an elucidation of the existing provisions of the said Act read with provisions contained in the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948;” and Conclusion “(ii) the un-amended provisions of the Act of 1961 and, in particular, Section 2(g)(1) read with Sections 18 and 23-A of the Act of 1948 and Rule 16(ii) of the Rules of 1949 cover all such lands which have been specifically earmarked in a consolidation scheme prepared under Section 14 read with Rules 5 and 7 and confirmed under Section 20, which has been implemented under the provisions of Section 24 and no other lands;” arrived at by the Full Bench in Jai Singh II (Jai Singh’s case 2003 SCC Online P&H 409) affirmed though for different reasons.

(Para 31, 67)

B. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) (6) (For Haryana) -- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 14 -- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, Rules 5, 7 -- Land contributed by proprietor on pro-rata cut -- Land not earmarked for any common purpose – Ownership Column-Jumla Mustarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat – Possession Column-Proprietors – Vesting of – Conclusion “(iii) the lands which have been contributed by the proprietors on the basis of pro-rata cut on their holdings imposed during the consolidation proceedings and which have not been earmarked for any common purpose in the consolidation scheme prepared under Section 14 read with Rules 5 and 7 and entered in the column of ownership as Jumla Mustarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat and in the column of possession with the proprietors, shall not vest with the Gram Panchayat or the State Government, as the case may be, on the dint of sub-section (6) of Section 2(g) and the explanation appended thereto or any other provisions of the Act of 1961 or the Act of 1948;” arrived at by the Full Bench in Jai Singh II (Jai Singh’s case 2003 SCC Online P&H 409) set aside.

(Para 31)

C. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) (6) (For Haryana) – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 2(bb), 18,  23-A – Shamilat deh -- Land reserved for common purposes – Non-utilisation of – Vesting of -- Redistribution to Proprietor – Right of --  Land reserved for common purposes cannot be re-partitioned amongst the proprietors only because at a particular given time, the land so reserved has not been put to common use -- Since ‘common purpose’ is a dynamic expression, as it keeps changing due to the change in requirement of the society and the passing times, therefore once the land has been reserved for common purposes, it cannot be reverted to the proprietors for redistribution.

(Para 84)

D. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) (6) (For Haryana) – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 2(bb), 18, 23-A – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, Rules 5, 7, 16(ii) – Ownership Column-Jumla Mustarka Malkans Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat – Land reserved for common purposes – Utilised or not -- Vesting of – Conclusion “(iv) all such lands, which have been, as per the consolidations scheme, reserved for common purposes, whether utilised or not, shall vest with the State Government or the Gram Panchayat, as the case may be, even though in the column of ownership the entries may be Jumla Mustarka Malkans Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat etc.” arrived at by the Full Bench in Jai Singh II (Jai Singh’s case 2003 SCC Online P&H 409) affirmed as there is no challenge to Conclusion No. (iv).

(Para 31, 67)

E. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 2(bb), 23-A – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, Rule 16(ii) -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 4 -- Jumla Mushtarka Malkan land -- Finding in para 218 (k) in Suraj Bhan’ case, MANU/PH/3354/2016 = 2017 (2) Punjab Law Reporter 605 “(k) Any observation in Jai Singh’s case (supra) and Veer Singh’s case (supra) to the extent it is taken as conferring a right, title and ownership in respect of ‘Jumla Mushtarka Malkan’ lands on the Gram Panchayat would be improper and invalid notwithstanding Section 4 of the VCL Act 1961 in view of Section 2 (bb) and Section 23A of the Consolidation Act 1948; besides, Rule 16(ii) of the Consolidation Rules 1949 and the judgment of the Five Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh’s case (supra).”, set aside.

(Para 32, 67)

F. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 14, 18, 23-A – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, Rules 5, 7, 16(ii) – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) – Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 7(4) – Gram Panchayat area -- Vesting of land reserved for common purposes -- Extension of municipal limit – Effect of -- Section 7(4) of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is to be read with the provisions of the 1973 Municipal Act -- The 1973 Municipal Act contemplates that even if part of the property of Gram Panchayat is included in the Municipal Limits, it would vest with the municipality -- Thus, the word ‘whole’ appearing in Section 7(4) of Panchayati Raj Act does include part of the Gram Panchayat area coming within the municipal limits -- Thus, if the whole or part of Gram Panchayat area is included in the municipal limits, the land reserved for common purposes as part of agrarian reforms would stand vested with the municipality -- The common purposes of the village community prior to extension of the municipal limits would be deemed to be common purposes for which land can be utilized by the municipality -- Such vesting of land reserved for common purposes is not an acquisition for the first time but transition of the land.

(Para 103, 104)

G. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Sections 2(g), 7, 13A (Haryana) -- Haryana Common Purposes Land Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1985 (15 of 1985), Section 2 -- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Sections 2(bb), 14, 18, 23-A -- Shamilat deh – Land reserved for Common purposes – Eviction of unauthorised occupant – Title dispute -- Remedy of -- Scope of the two provisions under the 1985 Act and 1961 Act are different and distinct -- Under the 1985 Act, the Gram  Panchayat could seek eviction from unauthorized occupants, the management and control as of the land reserved for common purposes whereof vested in the Gram Panchayat in a summary way where the possession of the occupant was unauthorized -- But if there is dispute in respect of the nature of occupation by the occupant or by the panchayat, procedure under the 1961 Act alone can be resorted to as Section 13A of the 1961 Act confers power upon the Collector to decide the question of right, title or interest in any land or immoveable property vested or deemed to have been vested in the panchayat – In case of a dispute about the right, title or interest in any land for or on behalf of any person, the remedy under the 1961 Act alone can be exercised -- This will include right, title or interest in all the three categories of land i.e., shamilat deh owned by panchayat, shamilat land vested in terms of 1948 Act falling in second category and the land, the management and control whereof is vested with the panchayat, land being within the permissible limits of the proprietor, the management and control of which vest with the panchayat.

(Para 107)

H. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(6) (As amended by Haryana Act 9 of 1992) – Shamilat deh -- Impugned provisions of the Amending Act:

“2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires

xxx                            xxx                        xxx

(g)              shamilat deh" includes

xxx                            xxx                        xxx

(6) lands reserved for the common purposes of a village under Section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act 50 of 1948), the management and control whereof vest in the Gram Panchayat under Section 23-A of the aforesaid Act.

Explanation- Lands entered in the column of ownership of record of rights as ‘Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hassab Rasad, ‘Jumla Malkan’ or ‘Mushtarka Malkan’ shall be Shamilat Deh within the meaning of this Section.”

Held, Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992, the Amending Act is valid and does not suffer from any vice of constitutional infirmity -- Entire land reserved for common purposes by applying pro-rata cut had to be utilized by the Gram Panchayat for the present and future needs of the village community and that no part of the land can be re-partitioned amongst the proprietors.

(Para 5, 108)

I. Meaning of revenue terms:

Abadi -- Land which is the site of a house, homestead or building.

Abadi Deh -- Land reserved for houses of the village community. Lies within the Laldora (red line). Is normally assigned one Khewat and one Khasra no. No land revenue is charged.

Bachat land -- Land left out which was carved out by imposing a cut on proprietors which was reserved for common purposes during Consolidation.

Types of land

(a) Banjar Jadid -- Old Fallow that has remained uncultivated for four Harvests but may still be brought to cultivation

(b) Banjar Qadim -- Old Fallow that has remained uncultivated for eight Harvests but may still be brought to cultivation.

(c) Gair Mumkin Land -- Land that is no longer capable of being used for cultivation as it is the site of a house, building, road, canal, river etc.

(d) Nehri land -- Land that is irrigated by a canal

(e) Barani -- Rain fed

(f) Chahi -- Irrigated by wells or Tubewells

(g) Aabi -- Irrigated by means other than canal or Well

Deh -- Land

Fard -- Document prepared by the revenue Official

Documents that form part of the Records of Rights U/s 31 of the Punjab Land Records Act, 1887

(a) Jamabandi -- Records names of land owners, tenants or assignees of land revenue in the estate or who are entitled to receive rents, profits or produce of the estate or to occupy land therein.

(b) Wajib-ul-arz Or Sharat Wajib-ul-arz -- The statement of custom respecting rights and liabilities in the estate and also contains the rights of proprietors and non-proprietors in the common land of the village. It is also called the village administration paper.

(c) Shajra kishtwar -- A Map of the estate (shajra kishtawar (map of the village) is prepared on a strong cloth called a Latha A copy of the Map is called the Aksh Shajra).

Hasab Rasad Zare Khewat -- Share of a proprietor in common land. According to the revenue assessed on his proprietary holding.

Jumla Mushtarka Malkan -- Land carved out for common purpose from the holding of the proprietors, the control and management of which vests with Panchayat.

Jumla Mushtarka Malkan Wa digar Haqdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad Raqba -- Joint holding of the proprietary body and other right holders as per share in the land contributed during consolidation on a pro rata basis. The management and control of such land vests in the Panchayats.

Khewat Number -- Is the number assigned to an owner of his land holding. Only a landowner will be assigned a khewat number.

Khewatdar -- The holder of Land/share in a village.

Khatauni -- Records the name of person in Possession

Mal Guzars -- The person who pays the revenue assessed on an estate

Malikan Deh -- Proprietary body of the village.

Malikan Makbuza Khurd -- Owner in self cultivation

Mushtarka Malkan -- Joint ownership of all the proprietors

Phirni -- Pathway around the village habitation i.e. the village path around the Abadi Deh

Shamilat -- Common purposes

Shamilat Deh -- Lands Reserved and used for common purposes.

Tarrafs, Pattis, Pannas and Tholas -- The village was divided into different Pattis/sections based upon caste, religion, occupation, etc. of the persons residing in the village. Patti is described as division of land into separate portions or strips in a village. Patti is basically, therefore, a small division of the village. The terms ‘Taraf’, ‘panna’ and ‘Thola’ may be different but are akin to Patti and also deal with community of villagers residing separately.

Marla -- 30.25 sq. yards

Kanal -- 20 marlas = 605 sq. yards

Acre -- 160 marlas = 4840 sq. yards

Biswani Pukhta -- 7.5625 sq. yards

Biswani Kachcha -- 2.521 sq. yards

Biswa Pukhta -- 151.25 sq. yards

Biswa Kachcha -- 50.42 sq. yards

Bigha Pukhta -- 3025 sq. yards

Bigha Kachcha -- 1008.33 sq. yards

Acre Pukhta -- 5 Bighas 12 Biswa

Acre Kachcha -- 4 Bigha 75 Biswa

Hadbast -- Boundary of a village or revenue estate. Each village or revenue estate is assigned a separate Hadbast number.

Rectangle/Mushtatil -- The land is divided into different rectangles/ Mushtatils. The rectangle is represented by (//) in the revenue record. Each Mushtatil contains 25 Khasra Numbers with Khasra No. 13 being in the center. The holding of the land owner is represented by the rectangle/ Mushtatil number, followed by the Khasra number and the area of each khasra number.

Khasra number -- Khasra number is given to a specific piece of land in the village. One or more Khasra form a khatauni, one or more Khatauni form a Khewat. The Khasra numbers in a khatauni may or may not be mentioned sequentially.

(GLOSSARY OF THE WORDS USED IN THE JUDGMENT)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7(2), 13AA(2) (Haryana) – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Eviction proceedings – Revision for title dispute pending – Effect of -- Contends that in case the proceedings u/s 7(2) of the Act which have been preferred by the private respondents is finalised prior to the decision in the revision petition, the petitioner is likely to loose the possession of the land in question without there being any decision on the title – Direction issued to the F.C. Revenue to consider and decide the said revision petitions on the next date of hearing and in case it is not possible to do so on the said date, it may be done within a further period of one week thereafter.

(Para 1-5)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Age of candidate – Relevance of -- Appointed candidate is 65 years old and petitioner is 43 years old -- Appeal and revision against appointment dismissed – Held, it is settled law that the choice of the Collector has to be preferred unless and until the same is shown to be perverse -- Respondent No.6 being appointed, even though, 65 years of age and older to the petitioner, cannot be termed to be a perversity – Writ Court does not sit in appeal over orders passed by the authorities below and does not re-appraise the respective merits of the parties -- Thus, the impugned orders do not call for any interference -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 2-4)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Husband of petitioner was Lambardar – Non-consideration of -- It is settled law that the choice of the Collector must be respected unless and until the same is found to be perverse -- Just because the husband of the petitioner was a Lambardar, it cannot be presumed that she has better knowledge of lambardari duties -- In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the concerned Court is only required to go into patent procedural illegalities or perversities -- It is not essential for the Court to consider each and every argument raised because appellate jurisdiction is not being exercised – No ground to interfere with the order passed by the Financial Commissioner -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 3-5)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Mutation entry – Pendency of application – Writ against -- Petitioner purchased land but his name has been omitted from the mutation -- Representation has been submitted before respondent No. 3 but no action has been taken thereupon till date – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 to decide the pending representation in accordance with law by passing a speaking order within eight weeks -- If it is found that name of the petitioner has erroneously not been included in the mutation the same be done within four weeks thereafter.

(Para 1, 5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Mutation entry – Refusal to – Remedy of -- Order refusing to enter mutation passed by the Deputy Commissioner -- Same can always be challenged u/s 16 of the 1887, Act – Writ dismissed with liberty to avail the alternative remedy.

(Para 1-3)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7(2), 13AA (2) (Haryana) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Eviction proceeding -- Question of title pending in revision – Writ jurisdiction -- Contention that in case the proceedings u/s 7(2) of the Act is finalised prior to the decision in the revision petition, the petitioners are likely to loose the possession of the land in question without there being any decision on the title -- Direction issued to the F.C, Revenue, to consider and decide the said revision petitions on the next date of hearing, and in case it is not possible to do so on the said date, it may be done within a further period of one week thereafter.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 11 (Haryana) – Eviction proceedings – Question of title – Nature of – Contention that the proceedings could not have been taken further by the A.C., 1st Grade in the light of the reply raising question of title – Held, opinion of A.C., 1st Grade, has to be based upon the documents placed on record raising the question of title and the doubt with regard thereto -- In the absence of any document appended along with the reply to the petition u/s 7 of the 1961 Act, the plea cannot be accepted.

(Para 2-6)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 13 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Election of Panch -- Wrong declaration of result – Writ Jurisdiction -- After declaring the result, Presiding/Returning Officer, while preparing the list, i.e. Form No.9 and Annexure-IX, inadvertently by mistake, sent incorrect result to the higher authorities for issuance of notification and respondent no. 6 was declared elected -- Petition allowed, notification set aside and a direction given to Punjab State Election Commission to carry out the correction in the notification and fresh notification with respect to the result of the petitioner be issued.

(Para 3)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Suit for recovery of mortgage money dismissed – Tehsildar entered rapat cancelling mortgage – Challenge to – Writ jurisdiction -- Impugned order passed by a revenue official and the same is appealable under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 -- Since there is an equally efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, Court refrained from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 3)

Revenue matter – ROR dismissed in default – Second application for restoration – Maintainability of -- Restoration application also dismissed for non-prosecution -- Thereafter, a second application was filed and the same has been dismissed on the ground of maintainability – No error in the said order -- Petitioners should have challenged the said order by way of writ petition instead of filing a second application for restoration.

(Para 1-4)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appointment of chowkidar – Writ jurisdiction -- Maintainability of appeal – Even though, the Chowkidara Rules do not provide for an appeal, an appeal can still be filed u/s 13 of the Act as the Collector, who has passed the impugned order is a revenue official too – Writ petition is not maintainable.

(Para 1,4,5)

A. Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 116, 118 -- Mode of partition – Objections -- Appeal – Automatic stay -- Sub-Section 2 of Section 118 of the Act provides for a statutory appeal and filing thereof operates as an automatic stay of proceedings before the lower revenue official -- Having not availed of this remedy, the petitioner is deemed to have waived any objections that he may have had to the proposed mode of partition.

(Para 7)

B. Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 111, 116, 118 -- Consolidation of partition proceedings – Petitioner-M/s Fondant Propbuild Private Limited and M/s Fori Propbuild Private Limited are distinct entities being separate bodies corporate -- Thus, the two separate partition applications could not had been consolidated as it is settled law that partition applications, wherein, the parties are not identical cannot be consolidated -- Merely because, the petitioner and M/s Fori Propbuild Private Limited are 100% subsidiary companies of Emaar-MGF Limited, it cannot be said that the parties are identical because everybody corporate is a separate entity.

(Para 7)

C. Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 111, 116, 118 -- Mode of partition – Consolidated chunk – Land in the vicinity -- The parties having any other land must be given a consolidated chunk -- Petitioner wants to read this as providing land in contiguity with the other land in the vicinity – Court is not in agreement because only khewat Nos.32 and 33 were sought to be partitioned and the land in the vicinity was not the subject matter -- Revenue authorities could not be expected to take notice of other land in the vicinity -- Clause referred to only states that parties having other land should be given the same together and the other land would refer to the other partition application.

(Para 8)

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 199 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Honorarium to Sarpanch -- Government of Haryana ordered payment of Rs.3,000/- per month as Honorarium to each Sarpanch – Contention that amount is on the lower side and they are not paid various allowances, medical facilities, pension etc., whereas, the M.L.A. and M.P are granted various other allowances – Held, Honorarium cannot be claimed as a matter of right -- It depends upon the policy decision taken by the Government at the relevant time -- Sarpanch is not an employee -- Elected Sarpanch cannot claim equation with the M.P. or the M.L.A. – Writ dismissed.

(Para 2-6)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 24(3) -- Twice over vote – Single vote of Sarpanch -- Elected members are equally divided, the Sarpanch casted his vote in the first round -- Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat is the Presiding Authority in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat -- No occasion to hold that the Sarpanch is entitled to vote in a particular meeting more than once.

(Para 4)

Constitution of India, Article 309 – Appointment on compassionate ground – Pay Scale different than regular appointee – Permissibility of -- Once a person is appointed on a particular post, maybe on compassionate ground, that person is entitled to the pay-scale of the same post -- There cannot be two different pay-scales for the employee appointed on compassionate ground and the employee appointed on regular basis.

(Para 2-3)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Appointment of Lambardar – FC passed order to start proceedings afresh -- Power of -- Financial Commissioner can remand the case for starting proceedings afresh only in two situation:- (a) the proper procedure was not followed and (b) none of the parties is eligible or suitable -- Financial Commissioner has returned a finding that none of the parties were suitable and thus, he did not commit any error. Gurlal Singh’s case 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 792 relied.

(Para 4)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Quashing of FIR on compromise – Effect of -- It makes no difference whether the FIR is registered was pending on the date of the application or not -- Quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise does not absolve the petitioner so far as appointment to the post of Lambardar is concerned because the fact remains that he had committed a crime and is not a clean person -- Thus, the Commissioner was justified in setting aside the appointment.

(Para 4)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887) , Section 13, 16, 111, 121 -- Partition proceedings -- Sanad Takseem – Remedy of -- Partition application was decided finally and sanad was issued -- Petitioner preferred an appeal against sanad which was dismissed by the Collector -- Revision also dismissed – Held, petitioners did not adopt the appropriate remedy -- Sanad can only be challenged by way of revision petition before the Commissioner or by way of writ petition before the High Court -- That having not been done, the authorities below were justified in rejecting the appeal and revision.

(Para 2-4)

Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (29 of 1974), Section 2(12), 2(15) -- Kacha water course -- Water course was in existence since 1974 -- Application for restoration made on 25.06.2020 -- Even though it may be a 'kacha water course', it would be covered by the definition of water course contained in Section 2(15) of the Act, as the said definition includes a water course in existence under an agreement or by prescription

(Para 3)

A. Mutation entry – Nature of -- Mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose.

(Para 5)

B. Dispute of title -- Mutation on the basis of Will – Remedy of civil Court -- If there is any dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when the mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of the will, the party who is claiming title/right on the basis of the will has to approach the appropriate civil court/court and get his rights crystalised and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made.

(Para 5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 111-121 -- Partition of land – Consolidate takh – Preservation of possession – Principle of partition -- Financial Commissioner held that grant of consolidated and compact takh is also a principle of partition and that preservation of possession does not over-ride the said principle -- Both principles have to co-exist as far as possible – Mode of partition provides for one kurra for respondent No.5 and it also provides for keeping the possession intact -- However, if the stipulation regarding keeping the possession intact was to be rigidly adhered to, respondent No.5 could not have been granted one kurra – Held, the learned Financial Commissioner was justified in observing that maintenance of possession and grant of consolidated takh are both principles of partition and they have to co-exist.

(Para 4, 5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Partition of land -- Sanad Takseem issued – Power of Commissioner -- Final order of partition was passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, whereafter Sanad was issued -- Financial Commissioner has held that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to deal with matter of partition after sanad had been issued – Held, order of the Financial Commissioner is in accordance with law and no fault can be found with it -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 4,5)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 7 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Shamilat deh -- Encroachment over street – Removal/ Eviction of – Writ jurisdiction -- Street is included within the definition of “Shamlat Deh” -- Collector, on an application filed by the Gram Panchayat, is entitled to pass an order for putting the Gram Panchayat in possession of the Shamlat Deh land -- Since the petitioner can avail an efficacious alternative remedy available u/s 7 of the 1961 Act, therefore, there is no ground to exercise the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -- Petitioner relegated to the alternative remedy.

(Para 1-4)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Shamilat deh – Writ jurisdiction -- If the proprietors claim that the Shamilat land has never been reserved/used for common purposes, they can get their title decided from the Civil Court -- Writ petition is not the appropriate remedy. Jai Singh’s case 2003(2) PLR 658 relied.

(Para 3)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 13-A (Haryana) – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Eviction from Gram Panchayat land – Writ jurisdiction -- At the time when the decision was rendered on an application moved u/s 7 of the Act, 1961, the application/petition which was moved by the petitioners u/s 13-A of the Act for declaring them as owners of the land in question stood dismissed, the appeal against which was also dismissed by learned Commissioner and revision before financial Commissioner was also dismissed – Writ against those orders pending -- Mere pendency of an issue before a writ Court or a revisional Court where there is no stay granted with regard to possession, cannot be a ground for keeping the proceedings pending for all time to comes -- Pendency of the matter before the higher Court specially when a declaration sought for has been declined by the competent Court would not be an impediment for passing an order of eviction under Section 7 of Act, 1961.

(Para 4, 5)

Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (29 of 1974), Section 2(2), 20, 24, 55(2) – Revisional powers of Superintending Canal Officer – Challenge to – Contention that because of Section 55(2) of the Act, revision before the Superintending Canal Officer was not maintainable --- Held, contention is thoroughly misconceived -- Section 55 is regarding power of the Deputy Collector to order use or distribution of water and settlement of differences -- Deputy Collector is an officer appointed to perform the functions of Deputy Collector under the Act -- This is as per the definition of the said term contained in Section 2(2) of the aforementioned Act -- Thus, it is incorrect to submit that against the order of the Divisional Canal Officer, the Deputy Collector should have been approached in the first instance.

(Para 3, 4)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Appeal and stay application before FC – Non-decision upon – Writ petition -- Appeal came up for preliminary hearing on 02.02.2021 but was adjourned to 20.04.2021 as the said officer did not hold the Court on that day – Application for preponement was listed on 23.02.2021, but has again been adjourned to 20.04.2021 -- Petition disposed of with directions that the stay application be heard and decided on 20.04.2021 by the learned Financial Commissioner -- In case there is any exigency in holding the Court on 20.04.2021, then the order be passed on the said application within a period of one week thereafter.

(Para 1, 2, 5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 – Punjab Land Record Manual -- Revenue records – Nature of -- It is well settled that the authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 or Land Record Manual do not have jurisdiction to decide the question of title -- Revenue record is normally maintained only to update the information and collect revenue -- In such circumstances, it is the Court which has jurisdiction to decide the rights and liabilities of the parties.

(Para 3)

A. Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7, Rule 11 – Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 111, 158 – Partition proceedings of land – Challenged in Civil suit -- Rejection of plaint -- Civil suit challenging partition proceedings on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice – Ld. trial Court is correct in observing that proceedings can always be challenged in case violation of principle of natural justice -- Section 158 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in case a suit is filed for grant of relief, which can be provided by the Revenue Officers under the Act, 1887 – That is not the case in the suit -- Application dismissed by Trail court, order upheld.

(Para 4-7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11, Order 7, Rule 11 – Plea of res-judicata – Rejection of plaint -- Res judicata, is a mixed question of fact and law -- Evidence has to be led by the defendant-petitioner to be successful and, thus, plaint cannot be rejected as being barred by law.

(Para 7)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Commissioner reversed the order of DC – FC upheld the appointment made by DC by setting aside Commissioner’s order -- Ld. Single Judge uphold the order of FC by saying that although the petitioner is younger in age by few years and is a matriculate with ownership of the land also on the higher side vis-à-vis respondent No.6 but respondent No.6 carries more personal influence and has been an ex-member of the Gram Panchayat from 1992 to 1996 and has also worked as an authorized Sarpanch in the year 1996-97 -- Villagers have also given Panchnama in favour of respondent No.6 and these factors have weighed in the mind of the District Collector while appointing respondent No.6 as Lambardar -- Further, in the absence of any illegality, perversity or mala fide in the exercise of power by the District Collector, such exercise of choice by him/her is uncalled for, which is the settled law – Held, order of learned Single Judge and FC being based upon the settled proposition of law do not call for any interference in the appeal.

(Para 5, 6)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 13-B – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Writ of mandamus – Executive revision petition pending before Commissioner since 6.11.2020 – Direction given to Commissioner to make an effort to decide the revision petition on fixed date and in any case, to conclude the said proceedings by deciding it within a further period of three weeks thereof, if it is not possible to conclude on fixed date.

(Para 1, 2)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Sections 5 and 15(2)(f) -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 12(4) -- Gram Panchayat land/ deh – Shamilat land/ deh -- Sale to illegal occupant – Regularisation of -- Permissibility of – Persons in illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land cannot, as a matter of right, claim regularization – It can only be as per the policy of the State Government and the conditions stipulated in the Rules – Rule 12(4) specifically contained a stipulation to the effect that the illegal/unauthorised occupation up to a maximum of 200 square yards only can be sold on regularisation and on fulfilment of other conditions mentioned in Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules -- Petitioners are found to be in illegal occupation of the area of more than 200 square yards -- Therefore, one of the conditions mentioned in Rule 12(4) is not satisfied and therefore both, the competent authority as well as the High Court have rightly held that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules -- Prayer of the petitioners for regularization of their illegal occupation of the panchayat land cannot be accepted.

(Para 7, 8, 9)

A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 5, 15(2)(f) -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 5 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Exchange of shamilat deh/land – Satisfaction in resolution about benefit of inhabitants of village – No such satisfaction was recorded by it while passing the impugned resolutions -- Government has already approved the change of land use from agriculture to industrial in the land in question belonging to Gram Panchayat which is abutting road -- Development activities have already started in the said area -- So, it cannot be said that it is a case of exchange of two lands having equivalent values -- 200 feet road has divided the Panchayat land into two parts, same has increased the potential value of the said land which is now abutting both sides of the road leading to Mohali International Airport -- Writ petition allowed, the impugned Resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat set aside -- A writ in the nature of Certiorari is also issued for quashing the order passed by the Government permitting the exchange of land of the Gram Panchayat.

(Para 21-26)

B. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 5, 6, 15(2)(f) -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 5 -- Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 199 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Exchange of shamilat deh/land – Challenged in writ – Alternative remedy – Effect of – Locus-standi of -- Anybody who has been prejudicially affected by the aforesaid acts or omissions committed by the Gram Panchayat could invoke writ jurisdiction, even though he may not have proprietary interest in the subject matter -- As the petitioner was not party to the impugned proceedings, he was having no right to challenge the same by filing statutory appeal -- Also the existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and is a rule of discretion and self-imposed limitation rather than that of law – Petitioner being vigilant citizen and inhabitant of the village was competent to challenge impugned actions of Gram Panchayat in the writ petition, even if he has not availed the alternative remedy (if any), available to him under the law – Gram Panchayat resolution and permission granted by Government set aside.

(Para 23-26)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Criminal case – Clean antecedents – Consideration of -- FIR registered against the petitioner u/s 323, 324, 341, 379, 34 IPC on 3.9.2009 much prior to the post of 'Lambardar' having fallen vacant on 5.11.2012 – Acquittal in the above-said case was on 1.2.2018 i.e. much later than the appointment of respondent No.4 as 'Lambardar' vide impugned order dated 20.5.2014 – Even if the petitioner possesses better educational qualification and bigger chunk of land than appointed candidate, appointing authority is supposed/required to select the candidates having clean antecedents – No illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned orders – Writ petition, being sans any merit, deserves dismissal.

(Para 7, 8)

A. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948) -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Question of title – Jurisdiction of Revenue authorities -- Neither the authorities, constituted under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, nor the authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act (while deciding the mutations), have the jurisdiction to decide on the question of title.

(Para 6)

B. Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 18, 25 – Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 12(3) -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 31, 34 – Surplus land – Suit for declaration – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Cancellation of instrument can be obtained by a person against whom such a written instrument is void or voidable -- Whereas Section 34 provides for declaration of status or right -- It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs were not the parties to the litigation when the orders u/s 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 were passed or when the land was declared surplus -- When the proceedings or orders of the quasi-judicial Tribunal are challenged before the Civil Court, one is not required to challenge the order in the strict sense as he is not bound by the same -- Hence, such person is entitled to file a suit for declaration that such orders do not affect his rights.

(Para 8)

C. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Question of title -- Mutation – Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities -- Finding of civil court – Effect of -- Revenue authorities, while deciding mutations, do not have jurisdiction to decide the question of right, title or interest of the parties -- Revenue authorities are bound to implement the order finally passed by the Civil Court -- Writ petition disposed of with the observations that whenever the Civil Court finally decides the suit, the revenue authorities would be bound to give effect thereto in the revenue record.

(Para 12)

A. Haryana Dohlidar, Butimar, Bhondedar anti Muqararidar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 2010 (1 of 2011), Section 2(d), 8 -- Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muqararidar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Rules, 2011, Rule 3 -- Dholidar – Continuous possession – Right to title suit -- Any person who is recorded as Dholidar would be entitled to file a title suit under the Act, in case he is able to show continuous possession of himself or his predecessor over the land in question for the last more than twenty years.

(Para 4.1)

B. Haryana Dohlidar, Butimar, Bhondedar anti Muqararidar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 2010 (1 of 2011), Section 2(d), 8 -- Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muqararidar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Rules, 2011, Rule 3 -- Mandir as Dholidar – Right of individual -- Land was given to the Mandir as Dholi and not to the individuals as claimed – As per Jamabandi for the years 1963-64, 1975-76 and 1985-86, the land in question is reflected under the ownership of Panchayat Deh with possession of Mandir Aushtal/ Devla as Dholidar through its caretaker ‘S’ – These entries however have changed with passage of time as being in possession of Mandir Devla Dholidar and caretaker ‘S’ -- No document which would show the reason for change in revenue record -- Consequently, the subsequent entries where ‘Ba’ has been changed to ‘Va’ are without authority and thus liable to be ignored.

(Para 6)

C. Haryana Dohlidar, Butimar, Bhondedar anti Muqararidar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 2010 (1 of 2011), Section 2(d), 8 -- Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muqararidar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Rules, 2011, Rule 3 -- Gram Panchayat gave land for temple -- Dholidar/ownership dispute pending – Sale of property -- Bonafide purchaser – Right of -- It is settled position of law that a temple is an entity of its own but has to work through individuals/ caretakers -- It is for the donor to decide to whom it considers as an entity and in the present case the Gram Panchayat has conferred Dholi rights upon the temple -- Possession of ‘S’ was that of caretaker of Mandir Devla, it cannot be said that the nature of his possession was that of a Dholidar – Bought the property during the pendency of the proceedings, lis-pendens would apply – No question of transferring perfect title upon subsequent purchasers -- No protection can be given to the petitioner, as he had knowingly bought litigation from them.

(Para 7-8.3)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 – Shamilat deh – Res-judicata – Earlier plaintiff’s father petition was dismissed by Collector, affirmed by Division Bench of High Court -- Land in dispute is the same in the previous and subsequent litigation which came to be decided by the Division Bench -- Plaintiff as well as his witness admitted that the plaintiff's father also filed a similar suit in which he remained unsuccessful -- Keeping in view the principle of res judicata, the suit is a clear abuse of the process of the Court – Appeal dismissed in limini, with costs of Rs.25,000/-.

(Para 3-6)

A. Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (20 of 1960), Section 1, 11 -- Constitution of India, Article 300-A -- Surplus land – Deprivation form property -- Right to property is still a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India though not a fundamental right -- The deprivation of the right can only be in accordance with the procedure established by law -- Thus, the provisions of the said Act had to be complied with to deprive a person of the land being surplus.

(Para 1, 28)

B. Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (20 of 1960), Section 11(4),(5),(6) -- Surplus land – Suit pending – Right of landholder -- Once a disclosure was made, the matter had to be dealt with under sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the said Act and in view of the pending suit proceedings between the appellant and “J”, the proviso came into play which required the respondent authorities to await the decision of the court -- Sub-section 5 and thereafter sub-section 6 would kick in only after the mandate of sub-section 4 was fulfilled -- Effect of the decree in favour of “J” is that the appellant loses the right to hold that land and his total land holding comes within the ceiling limit -- If there is no surplus land there can be no question of any proceedings for takeover of the surplus land under the said Act.

(Para 29)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16, 111 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Partition proceedings – Admission of ROR, declining of stay – Writ jurisdiction -- Petitioners refrains from challenging the order declining stay and sought direction to decide the pending ROR on date fixed and till then the AC 1^st Grade be restrained from passing any order – Held, prayer is reasonable, FCR directed to decide the ROR on the next date, till then, AC1st Grade restrained from passing any order in the pending partition proceedings.

(Para 1-5)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Reversed by Commissioner, affirmed by FC – Challenge to -- Writ jurisdiction -- Authorities below have compared a number of aspects between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 before approving the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Lambardar of the village -- Not only respondent No. 4 is younger in age but is better qualified than the petitioner -- Authorities below are the better judge with regard to the appointment to the post of Lambardar by evaluating the candidates, who were claiming appointment against the said post -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 3-5)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Reversed by Commissioner, affirmed by FC – Driver – Candidature of -- Writ jurisdiction -- Objection that Respondent No. 4 is a driver by profession and hardly remains in the village is being raised for the first time -- Same cannot be taken into account to interfere with the orders -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 6)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar by DC – Appeals against appointment dismissed -- In revision appointed candidate wish to discontinue as headman -- Authorities are required to issue fresh advertisement.

(Para 5)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 5 – Exchange of land with Panchayat for passage – Construction thereupon – Right of -- Land belonging to Gram Panchayat was given to the petitioner in exchange of his land – Such type of exchange of land by the Gram Panchayat requires prior approval of the State Government – Petitioner has failed to produce copy of any approval given by the State Government -- Petitioner has got no right to raise construction in the site which is meant only for the purpose of passage – Challenge to letter asking the petitioner to stop raising any further construction -- No ground to interfere in the matter -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 4-11)

A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 122, 23 – Gift deed – Acceptance by donee --  Section 122 of the TP Act, 1882 neither defines acceptance, nor does it prescribe any particular mode for accepting the gift – Aforesaid fact can be ascertained from the surrounding circumstances such as taking into possession the property by the donee or by being in the possession of the gift deed itself -- Only requirement stipulated here is that, the acceptance of the gift must be effectuated within the lifetime of the donor itself – Being an act of receiving willingly, acceptance can be inferred by the implied conduct of the donee.

(Para 24-27)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 122, 23 – Gift deed – Acceptance by donee --  Recitals clearly indicate that donor intended to part with ownership and possession immediately after the execution of the gift deed -- Mutation entry in the Revenue Record clearly reflects that half portion of appellant's land was bestowed as a gift by the appellant to his son through a registered instrument of gift -- Statement rendered by the appellant-donor before the Court of Additional District Magistrate indicates that the donee was already a major at the time of the execution of the gift deed and after execution of the gift deed the donee started cultivating on the same -- Aforesaid statement of the appellant-donor is completely supported by the statement made by the donee before the Court of Additional District Magistrate -- Donee clearly stated that, the land was transferred to him by virtue of gift deed was under his possession and he was cultivating the same – Held, therefore, there was an acceptance of the gift by the donee during the lifetime of the donor.

(Para 28-32)

C. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 122, 23 – Registered Gift deed – Challenge to -- Respondents failed to bring on record any evidence to rebut the fact that the donee was in enjoyment of the property -- Plausible view was taken that, it was a transfer between a father and a son and there was a valid acceptance of the gift when the donee-son started living separately -- Lastly, it ought to be noted that apart from the point of acceptance by the donee, since the deed is registered, bears the signature of the donor and has been attested by two witnesses, the requirements u/s 123 of the TP Act, 1882 have been satisfied.

(Para 33)

D. Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act No. 3 of 1955), Section 30D, 30DD – Transfer by gift deed -- Protection from land ceiling -- If the appellant succeed in its endeavor to establish that the transfer was covered u/s 30DD of the Tenancy Act of 1955, then such transferred land has to be exempted from computation of confiscable land, irrespective of the fact that it falls within the ceiling limit as prescribed under Section 30D of the Tenancy Act of 1955.

(Para 43)

E. Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act No. 3 of 1955), Section 30C, 30D, 30DD -- Land ceiling area u/s 30C -- Transfer by registered gift-deed on 19.12.1963 – Protection from land ceiling -- It must be taken into consideration that, the aforesaid transfer was executed way before the cut-off date stipulated u/s 30DD i.e. 31.12.1969 -- Therefore, the registered gift deed dated 19.12.1963 was a bona fide transfer squarely covered within the ambits of Section 30DD, which intended to protect the rights of agriculturalists – Held, transfer is not invalid as it stands protected as per the provision of Section 30DD of the Tenancy Act of 1955.

(Para 46)

F. Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1973 (Rajasthan Act No. 11 of 1973), Section 6 – Bonafide transfer – Protection from land ceiling -- Transfer of land by gift deed on 19.12.1963 -- There is no finding that the gift deed was actuated upon any extraneous consideration -- Hence, it constitutes a bona fide transfer which are exempted from the rigors of Section 6 of the Ceiling Act of 1973.

(Para 48)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 31, 34 -- Revenue entry – Gair marusi tenant -- No evidence to show as to in which manner the property was tenanted and/or who had given the said property on rent -- Nothing on record to show that the rent was ever paid nor the manner of payment of rent was proved – Revenue record does not indicate that any rent was payable – Held, entry in the revenue record as Gair Marusi alone cannot prove the factum of the tenant at will in respect of the suit land -- Both the Courts below have rightly concluded that the defendants are in an unauthorized possession of the suit land – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 11-16)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Non-challenge to before Commissioner – Held, once the petitioner accepted the order of the Collector, he cannot now turn around and submit that he was to be given an opportunity to be heard on merits and contest the case against the private respondent -- Thus, he now cannot contend that the matter should be remanded for inviting fresh applications, so that he can also contest on merits.

(Para 14)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Long pendency of Revision/Stay application -- R.O.R. pending since 22.05.2019 -- Financial Commissioner is directed to consider on merits the appeal and the stay application and pass appropriate orders -- In the event the appellate authority is not in a position to dispose of the main appeal immediately, the stay application filed therein shall be considered expeditiously on merits not later than two weeks by affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15, 16 -- Removal of Lambardar – Challenge to – Fresh appointment – Effect of -- In the proceedings there was a challenge to the removal of the petitioner from the post of Lambardar -- At no point of time, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Financial Commissioner, there was any stay as regards the fresh appointment of Lambardar -- Collector, appointed respondent No.5 as Lambardar -- Held, once a fresh Lambardar stands appointed, the finding that RORs filed by the petitioner had been rendered infructuous, cannot be found fault with – Doctrine of merger will not apply.

(Para 11-14)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 13-A – Ownership suit by Gram Panchayat before Collector – Revenue authorities ignored civil court decrees as null and void and decided in favour of Gram Panchayat -- Land of the shamlat deh measuring 9413 kanal 13 marla i.e. about 1176 acres was given on lease to the petitioners and others in the year 1952 under the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1948 -- Petitioners did not vacate the land after expiry of the lease period and remained in unauthorized possession without paying any rent to the Gram Panchayat

– Petitioners filed suits in the Civil Court and obtained the collusive decrees of the land measuring 6531 kanal 11 marla i.e. about 816 acres.

-- Besides this, the suit filed by the Gram Panchayat in order to challenge the decrees of the years 1973 and 1974 were also not contested by it and were dismissed for want of prosecution or evidence.

-- Thus, the petitioners and others, who are otherwise not the owners, got a declaration of the ownership rights from the Civil Court though the land in dispute is recorded in the revenue record as shamlat deh hasab rasad zar khewat which cannot be owned by a person who is not a co-sharer or proprietor.

-- Petitioners and others are admittedly not the co-sharers but were only in possession as lessee and there is no such law that a lessee can become the owner without purchasing the land in his possession.

-- Ownership can be set up in an immovable property by way of sale, gift or exchange whereas the possession can be claimed by way of lease and mortgage – Claim that their decrees have been protected by High Court while deciding CWP No. 525 of 1975 is not acceptable because in the case of Gram Panchayat, Village Naulakha 200(4) RCR (Civil) 749, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the collusive degree obtained by fraud can be ignored in a subsequent suit/proceedings if question is raised and proved and it is not necessary to file an independent separate suit for setting aside such a decree.

Held, if such type of decrees obtained by the petitioners and similarly situated other persons in collusion with the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, for declaration of ownership, though they are not the owners of the land in question and were only in possession and the land is shamlat deh are protected then there would be a total chaos in the Society – Held, no error in the impugned orders, writ petition dismissed.

(Para 18-20)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Hereditary claim -- Appointment by hereditary is not exclusive but only gives a preferential right -- Preference can only be given in case two candidates are found to be similarly situated i.e. on the same footing -- Respondent No. 4 has been found better suited than the petitioner, therefore, the claim of the petitioner to be appointed on the basis of hereditary by giving him preference, is not correct and cannot be accepted.

(Para 6)