- (1.) All the five writ petitions address the same issue of the validity of the order passed by the authority constituted under the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961 (as applicable to Haryana). The contentions of the respective petitioners in the writ petitions are that the property had been held as per the respective shares much before 1950 as Proprietors and they had not vested in the Gram Panchayat to entitle the Gram Panchayat to apply for eviction under the Act. The Assistant Collector had observed that out of total extent of 11 bighas 13 biswas, Gujjar Singh was cultivating 6 bighas and 8 biswas. The Assistant Collector had made a specific reference to entries in the name of Gujjar Singh in the year, 1933-34, 1937- 38, 1938-39 and had reckoned a total extent of 10 bighas and 13 biswas alone was in his possession and for that alone the s exemption under Section 4(3)(ii) of the Punjab Common Lands Regulations Act would apply. At later point of time, he had come to occupy larger portions and when consolidations took place, he was in possession of 55 bighas and 5 biswas as per Ex.D-1 and in of the same, he was allotted land measuring 271 kanals 13 marlas.
(2.) Adverting to the fact that the petitioner's exemption limit and to relate to properties held by him for more than 12 years prior to the commencement of the Act, out of total extent of 1l bighas and 13 biswas shown through Ex.D-5, he was entitled only 159 kanals and 5 marlas but however, he was in possession of 273 kanals and 13 marlas The petition for eviction had been filed only for the balance of extent after allowing for property that had been held by him to the extent of 59 kanals and 5 marlas. As the order records the fact that he was to choose 58 kanals and 5 marlas of his choice but later he made a representation that the authority itself have selected the numbeRs. The impugned proceeding satisfies particular rectangle numbers and killas for which exemption was extended. The order for ejectment was made with an assessment of mesne profits for Rs. 26,000/-. It was also observed that if the property is not delivered, he will continue to be liable to pay Rs. 26,000/- every year.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the definition of Section 2(g) and points out to the exclusion provided under "2(g)(v) and 2(g)(viii)" and states that since the petitioner had been an individual cultivating the land in possession as a co-sharer till 26th January, 1950, the said property was liable to exclusion. It was also contended that he had a raised a dispute regarding title and moved an application before the Court for referring the dispute regarding title for adjudication under Section 13-A to determine whether the property was shamilat deh or not. The grievance is that the Assistant Ca lector did not give any finding on the application moved for a reference regarding title for adjudication.;