SARWAN SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT OF BALAD KALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who claim to be proprietors of land situated in village Balad Kalan, Tehsil and District Sangrur, have impugned the order dated 20.6.1990 (Annexure P-1) whereby it has been held by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, respondent No. 2 that the land in dispute being Shamlat Deh vested in the Gram Panchayat.

(2.) The facts of the case, relevant for its disposal, are that after a chequered history in respect of the litigation between the parties, the matter was remanded by this Court in an earlier writ petition for decision by the authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as to whether the land in question belonged to the proprietors or vested in the Gram Panchayat. The matter was taken up by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, exercising the powers of Collector under the Act, who vide his order dated 5.5.1986 (Annexure P-2) recorded a finding that the land in question did not vest in the Gram Panchayat and he based this decision primarily on the fact that as per evidence produced by the petitioner-applicants before him, they had been in possession of the land prior to 1950. He also recorded a finding that the respondent-Gram Panchayat had failed to produce any evidence in its favour despite the fact that about 35/40 opportunities had been given between 7.11.1983 to 15.1.1985 for this purpose. It appears that after the decision of the Collector, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, who is stated to have connived with the petitioners, failed to file an appeal before the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Act and ultimately, it was the Administrator, who had been appointed to look after the affairs of the Panchayat, who filed the appeal, although belatedly. The Director condoned the delay in filing the appeal and reversed the finding of the Collector holding that the Sarpanch had connived with the petitioners and, as such, had not produced any evidence and in any case the petitioners were shown in the revenue record as Chakotedars under the Gram Panchayat on the land in dispute and, as such could not now claim to be its owners. Certain other documents were also placed on record and after perusing the same, the impugned order Annexure P-1 was passed.

(3.) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the decision of the case was required to be made on the basis of the definition of Shamlat Deh as given in Section 2(g) of the Act and for that purpose the definition as also the evidence produced was required to be discussed and considered. He has urged that elaborate written arguments had been filed before the Director, copy of which is Annexure P-4 to the petition, but the same were not considered by the Director while disposing of the appeal. He has also urged that the finding that the petitioners were lessees on the land in dispute under the Gram Panchayat, is not based on any evidence.