BARU Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT, PADHANA
LAWS(P&H)-2012-12-113
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on December 20,2012

BARU AND OTHERS Appellant
VERSUS
Gram Panchayat, Padhana Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Rajive Bhalla, J. - (1.) THE petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing orders dated 12.8.1988 (Annexure P -1) 14.2.1989 (Annexure P -3) and 28.8.1992 (Annexure P -5), passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Karnal, the Collector, Karnal and the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, respectively. A mutation bearing No. 734 was sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat, Padhana, on 8.6.1954, recording the ownership of the Gram Panchayat on the basis of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953. (hereinafter referred to as the "1953 Act"). The entries were, accordingly, changed from "Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Malkiati", to "Gram Panchayat". The 1953 Act was repealed by the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
(2.) THE proprietors filed a suit, before a Civil Court, claiming that the land, in dispute, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The suit was decreed on 26.4.1971, but this order was set aside by the Appellate Court on 25.11.1981 on the ground that the Sarpanch did not have the authority to concede the claim of proprietors. The petitioners, thereafter, filed a fresh suit on 2.12.1985, under section 13A of the 1961 Act, before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Karnal, claiming ownership on the ground that the land was in cultivating possession of their predecessors before commencement of the 1953 Act. The Gram Panchayat, filed a reply, denying averments in the petition. The petitioners filed a replication. After considering the pleadings, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, framed the following issues: 1 Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land as owner in the light of provisions of Village Common Land Act, since 26.1.50, if so, to what effect? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest? OPD
(3.) WHETHER the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.