- (1.) By this order, we shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 4493, 4494, 4495, 15167 and 15168 of 2007 as they involve adjudication of similar questions of facts and law. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.4493 of 2007.
(2.) The Gram Panchayat impugns order dated 12.4.2006 passed by the Director, Rural Development, Panchayats, Punjab (exercising powers of "Commissioner"), under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rs. 1961 Act'), whereby order dated 13.9.2004 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development)-cum-Collector, has been reversed by holding that the land in dispute does not vest in the Gram Panchayat.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that as the land, in dispute, is, admittedly, 'Shamilat Deh', it vests in the Gram Panchayat under section 2(g)(1) of the 1961 Act. It is further argued that as a large part of this tract of land is "Gair Mumkin Choe", (seasonal rivulets), and "Banjar Qadim", the land cannot possibly vest in proprietors, much less, any private individual under any provision of the 1961 Act. It is argued that jamabandis for the years 1931-32, 1939-40, 1955-56, 1965-66, 1969-70, 1974-75, 1979-80, 1982-83, 1992-93 and 1997-98 record the land as "Gair Mumkin Choes" etc., thereby clearly establishing that land, in dispute, is a seasonal rivulet. The Collector, Rupnagar, rightly held that the land, in dispute, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat and rightly ignored orders passed by consolidation authorities, directing re-distribution of this land amongst proprietors. The appellate authority has reversed the impugned order by relying upon order dated 10.6.1997 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation and by recording that as the land is "Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Zare Khewat" in possession of "Khud Kasht Va Makbuja Malkan", it vests in proprietors and as the 'Wazib-ul-Arz' records that "Shamilat Deh" shall be used by residents without charge and fruits of the common land shall be shared amongst land-owners, the land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. It is also pointed out that the appellate authority has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Gurjant Singh versus State of Punjab", without referring to its citation and even otherwise, a judgment with the same title relates to 'Jumla Mushtarka Malkan" and not to "Shamilat Deh". It is also submitted that while allowing the appeal, the appellate authority did not decide the application for condonation of delay, much less, record an order that any explanation for delay has been furnished. It is also argued that as the Additional Director, Consolidation, had no jurisdiction to entertain a petition filed on behalf of proprietors, divest the Gram Panchayat of its proprietary rights, or order its partition, the order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation, is a nullity and was, therefore, rightly ignored by the Collector. The reasoning adopted by the appellate authority, while holding that order passed by the Director Consolidation, is legal and valid; is perverse, arbitrary and contrary to law.;