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)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 111 to 121, 118 (2) (For Haryana) -- Partition of agricultural land -- Procedure of --

-- First, an application has to be made for partition and the revenue officer, after notice, if it comes to the notice that there is no dispute of the title, he would ask the Patwari to prepare map of land, sought to be partitioned, popularly known as naksha alf (Ka).

-- Naksha alf (Ka) was received by the Assistant Collector and statement of parties were recorded and mode of partition was prepared.

-- Mode of partition could have been challenged by filing an appeal under Section 118 (2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 – No appeal against the mode of partition, no objections were made and mode of partition was accepted -- Mode of partition attained finality.

-- Thereafter, mode of partition was forwarded to the Girdawar/Patwari Halqa for preparing naksha 'kha' -- After receiving naksha 'kha', the matter was adjourned for filing objections – Petitioner was granted sufficient opportunities, thereafter naksha 'Kha' was accepted and the matter was adjourned for calling naksha 'Zeem' -- Assistant Collector, Ist Grade passed an order that naksha 'Ga' had been received and the matter was adjourned for preparation of 'Sanad Takseem'.

-- As far as proceedings under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 are concerned, they had attained finality when the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, partitioned the land and sanctioned Sanad Takseem/Naksha Zeem.

(Para 16)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 115 -- Revisional power of Financial Commissioner – Scope of -- Financial Commissioner can go into the question of fact as well as law -- Power of the Financial Commissioner u/s 16 is wider than the revisional power of the High Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code -- Financial Commissioner can exercise these powers suo moto as well -- Financial Commissioner had absolute powers to examine the entire record of the Assistant Collector, who had sanctioned Naksha Zeem as well as the grievance of petitioner that he had not been given land as per mode of partition and the revenue authorities had given undue favour to respondent. Joginder Singh’s case 2003 (2) RCR (Civil) 461 relied.

(Para 21-27)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34, 35 -- Revenue record/ Khasra girdawari -- Change in entries without notice -- In the absence of adherence to the instructions of the Financial Commissioner and issuance of notice to the aggrieved party, the change so recorded in the revenue record would bring the presumption of continuity of possession in favour of the person in whose favour earlier entries were in existence.

(Para 9)

A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 11 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (v of 1908), Order 2 Rule 2, Section 11, Explanation IV of Section 11 – Eviction proceedings – Title suit thereafter – Maintainability of -- Once, the application filed u/s 7 of the Act is decided in which question of title, though available, is not raised, it puts an end to the controversy regarding the question of title which cannot be raised thereafter by filing a suit u/s 11 of the Act -- Subsequently a suit filed u/s 11 of the Act to establish the question of title shall not be maintainable.

(Para 8, 18-20)

B. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 – Title suit – In case, if the title of a person is threatened by the Gram Panchayat or anybody else, he can always file a suit u/s 11 of the Act for seeking declaration for having acquired the right, title or interest in the property in question.

(Para 19)

C. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 21-A -- Title suit – Limitation -- Whether the suit filed u/s 11 of the Act is time barred in view of Rule 21-A of the Rules if it is not filed within 30 days from the date of accrual of cause of action? – Held, cases in which application u/s 7 of the Act is not filed but a person or a Panchayat seeks a declaration of their right, title or interest in the land vested or deemed to have been vested in the Panchayat then the suit has to be filed within the period of 30 days from the date of accrual of the cause of action as provided in Rule 21-A of the Rules which means that the suit has to be filed when the right, title or interest is threatened and not at any time otherwise Rule 21-A(1) of the Rules provided in the Rules will become redundant.

(Para 21)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – Interference in -- It is settled law that choice of the Collector must be preferred unless the same is found to be perverse -- Collector has given cogent reasons and found that the said respondent is more educated, being younger in age and more active and energetic than the petitioner -- There is no perversity in the said order – Held, Commissioner was not justified in reversing the same merely because he felt that on a comparative examination of the merits of the candidates, petitioner was more suitable – Financial Commissioner accepted the appeal and restored the order of Collector – Order of FC upheld.

(Para 2-5)

A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) (as applicable to the State of Haryana) -- Shamilat deh – Meaning of -- The word ‘shamilat’ basically means ‘held in joint possession and undivided lands which are part and parcel of a village’ --  When these lands are held commonly by a village proprietary body, they are described as ‘shamilat deh’ land.

(Para 8)

B. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) (as applicable to the State of Haryana) -- Taraf -- Patti – Panna -- Thola’ – Meaning of -- ‘Taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ are different terms but have a common strain or similarity running through them -- These descriptions are of land of a group of villagers based on clan, caste, sect, area, etc. -- In British India, 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. These locations are known as pattis.

--      After independence since the caste system has been constitutionally abolished, these classifications refer to different hamlets/clusters where villagers reside in groups irrespective of their caste.

--      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. Therefore, they have virtually the same meaning.

It is also apparent that a patti can normally be created out of the shamilat land only when a group of people enjoy some portion of the land out of the bigger common shareholding that is a patti.

(Para 9, 10)

C. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) (as applicable to the State of Haryana) -- Shamilat deh -- If the land described as ‘shamilat’, ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ were not being used for the common purpose, it would not fall within the meaning of ‘shamilat deh’.

(Para 10)

D. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(5(v) (as applicable to the State of Haryana) -- Shamilat, taraf, pattis, pannas and thola -- A comma should be read after ‘shamilat’ and before ‘taraf’ in the latter part of the section also -- Word ‘shamilat’ has to be read with all four- ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ -- A land can be ‘shamilat deh’ only if it is ‘shamilat taraf’, ‘shamilat patti’, ‘shamilat panna’, or ‘shamilat thola’ -- In case the word shamilat is missing from any of these four terms, then the land cannot be said to be belonging to a group of people and could never become ‘shamilat deh’ land.

(Para 11)

E. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(3) (as applicable to the State of Haryana) – Shamilat deh -- Shamilat, taraf, pattis, pannas and thola – Purpose of the section which defines ‘shamilat deh’ is that the land described as ‘shamilat’, ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ not used for the benefit of the village community will not be treated as ‘shamilat deh’ -- Clause (3) of Section 2(g) is identical -- Purpose is that the land which is described in revenue records as ‘shamilat’, ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ and used for the benefit of the entire village community or a part thereof only would vest in the village proprietary body -- Even if the land is being utilised for the common purpose of the inhabitants of that ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’, it would be ‘shamilat deh’ even if it is not used for the benefit of the entire village -- However, if the land is not used either for the benefit of the entire village or for the part of the village community which comprises the patti then the land, cannot be said to be ‘shamilat deh’ land within the meaning of Section 2(g).

(Para 12)

F. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) (as applicable to the State of Haryana) -- Shamilat Patti -- Land has been shown as ‘Shamlat Patti Dhera & Khubi’ -- ‘Dhera & Khubi’ are the ancestors of the appellant(s) -- Possession is shown as that of proprietors/self-cultivators and an entry was made in favour of the Panchayat Deh in 1987-1988 -- Land was always shown to be ‘Shamlat Patti Dhera & Khubi’ and in the cultivation of the appellant(s) or his ancestors -- Moreover, the land was never shown to be used for the benefit of the entire village community or even for a part of the community – Held, the land cannot be described as ‘Shamilat Deh’ and, therefore, would not vest in the village proprietary body -- Name of the appellant(s) be entered in the column of ownership with the entry ‘shamlat patti’.

(Para 13,14)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 36 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Suit for permanent injunction -- Change in khasra girdawari after spot inspection -- As per settled position in law, no weight can be given to correction of khasra girdawari made during pendency of civil suit involving question of possession.

(Para 1, 8)

A. Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 33(2)(ii) – Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 2(3), 2(5a), 5-A, 5-B, 5-C -- Repeal of 1953 Act – Effect of -- Surplus land – Determination of -- Proceedings for determination of surplus area which was pending on 23.12.1972 was to be continued and disposed of as if 1972 Act had not been passed.

(Para 12,13)

B. Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 2(3), 2(5a) -- Permissible area – Surplus area – Meaning of -- Section 2(5a) expressly provides that “area in excess of permissible area selected deemed to be surplus area” -- Very definition of surplus area as contained in Section 2(5a) negates the submission of counsel for the appellant that selection of permissible area is not covered in the expression determination of surplus area.

(Para 23)

C. Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 2(3), 2(5a) -- Surplus area – Fraud – Plea of -- Appellant has purchased the land in dispute from ‘M.S’ in 16.06.1989, when the claim of ‘M.S’ stood rejected by both Commissioner and Financial Commissioner and land was included in the surplus pool -- Appellant cannot be permitted to raise any issue of fraud played on ‘M.S’, it was for ‘M.S’ in his life time, to establish the plea of fraud -- Appellant could not be allowed to raise any such submission.

(Para 30)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13,  121, 122 -- Sanad Taksim – Appeal – Maintainability of – No objections at any stage of the partition proceedings -- Filing of the appeal after the issuance of sanad taksim is probably malicious and mischievous -- Section 121 of Act, 1887 provides for preparation of an instrument of partition on completion of partition proceedings -- Section 122 of the said Act provides for delivery of possession -- No statutory appeal is provided against the issuance of the instrument of partition -- Appeal held to be not maintainable.

(Para 4)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(3),  7 -- Shamilat deh -- Shamilat patti – Eviction from -- Land in question has been recorded as shamlat patti -- Courts below, failed to hold as to how the land in question would fall in the definition of Section 2(g)(3) if it is recorded as shamlat patti and not being used for the benefit of village or a part of it or being used for the public purposes by the villagers -- Held, there is an error in the orders passed by both the authorities in not deciding the status of the land in question before passing the order of eviction against the petitioner -- Impugned orders are set aside.

(Para 8-10)

East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 23(2) -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 122 -- Possession u/s 23(2) of Consolidation Act – Limitation -- Arguments that since it is a matter of partition of holdings, therefore, provision of Section 122 of the Act of 1887 would apply in which limitation of three years is prescribed repelled. Kartar Singh’s case 1972 PLJ 268 (DB) relied.

(Para 3-10)

A. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 18 -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2, 7 (Haryana) -- Jumla Malkan land – Management and control would vest with the Gram Panchayat and thus, the Panchayat is competent to evict the unauthorized occupant from said land.

(Para 6, 11)

B. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 18 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Use of land for common purposes in consolidation as well as Wazib-Ul-Arz – Mutation – Non-existence of – Effect of -- Non-existence of mutation, which is otherwise only for fiscal purposes, would not ipso-facto make petitioners or their forefathers as the owners of the land, being proprietors, as the land in question was decided to be reserved for common purposes in consolidation as well as Wazib-Ul-Arz, which have not been set aside by any Court of law till date.

(Para 11)

East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 42 – No Rasta in consolidation -- Blockage of existing Rasta – Application u/s 42 for providing adequate rasta – Power of Director Consolidation – Delay of 40 years -- Limitation -- Land sold with existing rasta, house constructed thereupon – After 14-15 years children of seller and other taking the benefit of revenue record and consolidation record tried to block the passage – Director consolidation provided the rasta by making deficiency good – Ample powers with Director Consolidation to rectify any mistake or vary any scheme, being court of record, was justified in passing the impugned order -- It cannot be said that there was any jurisdictional error – Argument that delay of more than 40 years, no passage can be provided, is also devoid of any merit.

(Para 1,6,7)

A. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 42 -- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, Rule 18 – Power of Commissioner u/s 42 of the Consolidation Act – Delay -- Limitation -- There is no absolute restraint or limitation provided in exercising powers u/s 42 of the Act, 1948 with the authority concerned when a scheme is put to challenge, but said power must be exercised to do substantial justice to a party who is actually in need and not exercise the same without any “restraint” in each and every case and not considering reasons for delay at all.

(Para 8)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226/227 – Power of High Court – Substantial justice – Complete justice -- Courts, while exercising powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution have been granted unfettered powers, which are required to be exercised in a righteous/judicious manner to do substantial justice -- In an appropriate case, the High Court has the power to interfere, so as to do complete justice amongst the warring parties and in case dispute is amongst an individual and State, where the State can either be compensated or no loss has been caused to it then even the delay can be ignored, for doing substantial justice to the aggrieved party.

(Para 8)

C. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 42 – Rasta given in consolidation not reflected in revenue record -- Blockage of Rasta – Power of Commissioner u/s 42 of the Consolidation Act – Delay -- Limitation -- Tehsildar on spot inspection and enquiry has found that although the disputed passage was provided during consolidation scheme but it was never reflected/implemented/recorded in the final revenue record -- Passage was being put to use by respondent no.4/his predecessor in interest, without any resistance since consolidation -- Passage was subsequently blocked by petitioner by taking advantage of absence of entry in revenue record – Fit case where Commissioner had rightly exercised its powers u/s 42, by directing the Consolidation Officer to provide the passage as per Scheme.

(Para 9)

D. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 42 – Rasta given in consolidation – Existence of other passage – Effect of -- It is for the consolidation authorities to verify and consider as to how many passages are required to be provided to a particular piece of land -- Existence of other passage is no ground to set aside the impugned orders.

(Para 10)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34,36 -- Mutation proceedings – Nature of – Civil Court remedy – Availability of -- Proceedings in mutation cases, which is summary in nature, prima facie rights are granted by the parties and they are always left with appropriate remedy in the Civil Court in matters of serious disputes regarding the title etc., mutation can be sanctioned even if the possession is not transferred.

(Para 4)

A. Mutation – Nature of -- Mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor it has any presumptive value on the title -- It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question.

(Para 8)

B. Mutation – Nature of – Challenge to -- Civil suits in relation to the land in question are pending in the Courts between the parties -- It would not be proper to embark upon any factual inquiries into the question as to whether the entries were properly made or not and at whose instance they were made etc. -- It is more so when they neither decide the title nor extinguish the title of the parties in relation to the land.

(Para 10)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 (d) – Constitution of India, Article 141 -- Plaint to be barred by any law -- Rejection of plaint -- Expression “law” occurring in Order 7 Rule 11 (d) includes judicial decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court -- The authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court is the law of land -- The law declared by Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India is law of land -- Law includes not only legislative enactments but also judicial precedents.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 (c) – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Article 17(iii), Section 7 (iv)(c) -- Non-executant of deed in possession – Challenge to Transfer deed – Ad-valorem court fee -- If a non-executant who is in possession of the property seeks to get the document annulled, then he is required to pay Court as per Article 17(iii) of the Second Schedule of the Act.

(Para 9)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 (c) – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 (iv)(c) -- Non-executant of deed not in possession – Challenge to Transfer deed – Ad-valorem court fee – If the non-executant who is not in possession of the property and he seeks not only the declaration of the instrument to be invalid, but also seeks possession thereof, then he is required to pay ad valorem Court fee as per market value under Section 7(iv) (c) of the Act.

(Para 9)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 (c) – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 (iv)(c) -- Non-executant of deed in possession – Challenge to Transfer deed – Ad-valorem court fee -- Suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit property -- Transfer deed was claimed to be sham transaction and was not binding upon the right and title of the plaintiff -- Permanent injunction was also sought, restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff – Transfer deed under challenge in the suit does not show any consideration -- Plaintiff is not required to pay ad valorem Court fee.

(Para 2, 10)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7 – Eviction order – Passing of Speaking order – Requirement of – Quasi-Judicial Authorities – Duty of – Merely giving an opportunity of hearing is not enough --  Assigning reasons in any order passed by an Authority determining the rights of the parties is sine quo non -- In the absence of facts and the reasons in the order, it is impossible for the higher Court to appreciate as to what weighed the Authority to reach the conclusion arrived at -- Application of mind has to be there -- Faith of the people in administrative authorities can be sustained only if they act fairly and dispose of the matters before them by well-considered orders.

(Para 8)

A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 13(a) -- Shamilat deh or not – Vests in Gram Panchayat or not -- Jurisdiction of civil court -- Civil court does not have jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any land or other immovable property is or is not Shamilat deh and any land or other immovable property or any right, title or interest in such land or other immovable property vests or does not vest in a Panchayat under this Act.

(Para 11)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 62, 64, 76, 77 -- Documents Exs. P4, P5 and P5/T are copies of certain orders but the same are not admissible in evidence for want of producing certified copies thereof -- Mere marking of a document will not dispense with its proof in accordance with law.

(Para 14)

C. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 13 – Gram Panchayat land -- Eviction order by Revenue authority – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- Orders passed by the authorities with regard to eviction of the respondent u/s 7 of the Act cannot be challenged before the civil court.

(Para 15)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 123 -- Private partition – Affirmation from Revenue officer – Requirement of -- It is open to the parties to get the partition privately effected, affirmed from the Revenue Officer -- However, such provision does not make it mandatory for the joint owners to get the affirmation of the partition privately effected.

 (Para 12)

Mutation entry – Dispute regarding possession -- High Court erred in directing that the names of both the parties should be removed, this could not have been done -- Matter is remanded to the Supervisor Qanoongo, who after hearing both the sides, shall decide as to who is in legal possession of the land in dispute and thereafter make relevant entry in the revenue records.

(Para 5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 – Mutation entry – Challenge to – Remedy of appeal -- Rightly or wrongly the mutation has been sanctioned by the AC 2nd Grade -- Order of the Assistant Collector is amenable to appeal -- Remedy lies with the petitioner of filing appeal instead of making representation -- Hence, the petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to avail his remedy, if so advised, in accordance with law.

(Para 3)