Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) PUNJAB Wakf Board has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 12.1.2006 (Annexure P -9), passed by the Collector, whereby its petition/suit under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Village Common Lands Act'), for declaring it as owner of the disputed land has been dismissed; as well as the order dated 25.4.2008 (Annexure P -11), passed by the Commissioner, dismissing its appeal against the aforesaid order. The dispute in this case is regarding 2 Bighas 14 Biswas and 6 Biswas is of land, situated in village Dakha, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. As per the revenue record, the said land is recorded under ownership of the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat has been leasing out this land to various persons for cultivation from time to time, for the benefit of the Gram Panchayat. Last time, this land was given on lease to respondent No. 4 Bant Singh. After the expiry of the lease period, when he did not hand over the vacant possession of the land to the Gram Panchayat, the Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Village Common Lands Act against him. In the said application, the petitioner Board filed an application to become party, and subsequently, it filed a petition/suit under Section 11 of the Village Common Lands Act for declaring it as owner of the disputed land.
(2.) IN the petition/suit, filed by the petitioner Board under Section 11 of the Village Common Lands Act, it has been contended that the land in dispute, being a Muslim graveyard, is a Wakf property. It has been so notified vide notification dated 19.9.1970 (Annexure P -3). issued by the Central Government under Section 5(2) of the Wakf Act, 1954 (now repealed, a new Wakf Act 1995 has been enacted), which according to the petitioner Board is the conclusive proof of its ownership. The Gram Panchayat never filed any civil suit claiming this land as Panchayat land. It is further case of the petitioner Board that the Gram Panchayat has nothing to do with the disputed land, which is not shamilat deh and was never used for common purpose of the village. The land is wakf property and it was leased out by the petitioner Board to respondent No. 4. After taking into consideration the evidence led by both the parties, the Collector decided the aforesaid petition against the petitioner Board. It was held that after the year 1947, through out in the revenue record, the land in dispute has been recorded to be owned by the Gram Panchayat. However, in the column of cultivation, it has been recorded as Maqbooza Ahley Islam/Kabristhan. It has been further held that after partition of the country in the year 1947, the land in dispute is being used for cultivation. It has also been held that with the enactment of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 (Punjab Act No. 1 of 1954) ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1953'), by virtue of Section 3 of the Act of 1953, the land in dispute vested in the Gram Panchayat, and since then, in the revenue record, name of the Gram Panchayat has been recorded as owner. While relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh & others,, 1985(*) R.R.R 249:1985 PLJ 463, it has been further held by the Collector that merely by issuing a notification under the Wakf Act, the petitioner Board does not become the owner of the land in dispute, which is neither a conclusive proof of ownership, nor is binding on the Gram Panchayat. It has been further held that since in the revenue record, the land is recorded to be owned by the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner Board was not competent to lease out the same to respondent No. 4. In view of these findings, vide order dated 12.1.2006 (Annexure P -9), the petition/suit filed by the petitioner Board under Section 11 of the Village Common Lands Act was dismissed by the Collector.
(3.) ON appeal filed by the petitioner Board, this order was affirmed by the Commissioner, vide order dated 25.4.2008 (Annexure P -11). Hence, this writ petition.;