PATRAM Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT KATWAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar dated 28,8,2007 wherein it has been concluded that the land under reference is in unauthorised occupation of the petitioner,although the same is shamlat land. It is,therefore that the claim of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar while upholding the order passed by the Collector, Bhiwani dated 23.8.2001.

(2.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the determination rendered by the afore-stated Collector and Commissioner, respectively, are in clear violation of the definition of the term "shamlat deh" in Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Since reliance has been placed on Section 2(g) of the Act, the same is being extracted herein:

(3.) While examining the first contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner, as has been noticed in the foregoing paragraph, it is necessary to refer to clause (3) of Section 2(g) of the Act extracted hereinabove, which expressly treats "shamlat", "tarafs", "pattis", "pannas" and "tholas" as separate and distinct, while describing the nature of the land. Whereas, the exception under clause (v) of the proviso under section 2(g) of the Act notices, "shamlat taraf", "pattis", "pannas" and "thola" as falling within the exception. As per the revenue record of the year 1907- 08, the land under reference has been described as "shamlat patti". It does not, therefore, fall within the term "shamlat taraf", "pattis", "pannas" and "thola" as has been incorporated in the exception because "shamlat patti" is not excluded under the clause relied upon by the learned counsel. It is,therefor, not possible for us to accept that the land under reference falls within Clause (v) of the proviso under section 2(g) of the Act.