- (1.) The petitioner Gram Panchayat has challenged order dated 08.04.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab (Exercising the Power of Commissioner) by which appeal filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 under Section 11(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 [for short "1961 Act"] against the order dated 12.02.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Divisional Deputy Director, Panchayats-cum-Controller, Patiala, in respect of land falling in Khasra No. 52//16(8-0), 17(8-0), 18(7-8), 57//21/2(6-7), 22(8-0), 52//15/2(3- 0) and 57//23(8-0), total measuring 11 Kanals 15 Marlas, situated in village Mavi Sappan, Tehsil and District Patiala, has been allowed.
(2.) The case set up by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is that the land in dispute is not Shamilat Deh as it was Banjar Kadim and in possession of Makbooja Malkan as on 09.01.1954 when Shamilat Law came into force in the erstwhile Pepsu Area and was never used for common purposes.
(3.) The Collector dismissed the petition filed by respondent No. 3 and 4 with the following observations: "After hearing arguments of the ld. Counsels of both the parties, I have come to the conclusion that the Gram Panchayat is owner of this land as per revenue record, and the applicants produced the revenue record, in support of their claim, as per that their continuous possession from 26.1.50 is not proved. The respondent produced jamabandi for the year 1963-64, as per that there are no entries to show the possession of the applicants rather on the area claimed by the applicants bearing khasra No. 57//21/2 (6-7), 23(8-0), the possession of Sh. Tehal Singh etc. and on Khasra No. 52//15/2(3-0), 16(8-0), 17(8-0), 18(7-8) of Sh. Amroo etc. has been shown, from which it is crystal clear that the continuous possession of the applicants from the year 1950 is not there. Apart from this the mutation of this land was entered in the name of Nagar Panchayat in the year 1957 which has not been challenged by the applicants or any other person in the competent court. As such this mutation has attained finality. In this regard, the Division Bench of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Shisha Singh and other v. State of Punjab, 2005 4 RCR(Civ) 656 has categorically held that if such mutation has not been challenged under the Revenue Act then such mutation attains finality. The applicants has filed the present application after such a long period of 55 years which is time barred. In this context. Gram Panchayat Kakra v. Addl. Director Consolidation, 1997 4 RCR(Civ) 498 is especially worth mentioning. The applicants failed to establish their possession from 26.1.50. The Gram Panchayat Mavi Sappan is the owner of this land. Therefore as there is no weightage in the petition of the applicants, as such, the same is rejected. Order was pronounced in the open court. ";