- (1.) Civil writ petitions No.5265, 5343 and 5271 of 1992 were taken up together by a Division Bench of this Court as they involved adjudication of common question of law.
(2.) The question of law that arises for consideration in these writ petitions, directed against the orders passed by Additional Director Panchayats, Punjab, exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is whether the statutory authority known as a "panchayat", constituted under the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (now Punjab Panchayati Raj Act 1994), to carry out management and control of various kinds of land in the revenue estate, is covered under words "any person" and competent to file petition under Section 11 read with Section 7 of the Act? The question has arisen, as before Section 11 was amended to include a "panchayat" the words "any person" were interpreted to exclude a panchayat from the right to file a petition under Section 11 of the Act. At the time of arguments before the Division Bench, an earlier decision of Division Bench of this Court in Gurnam Singh v. The District Development Officer (Collector) Patiala and another, 1988 PunLJ 497regarding interpretation of word "any person" appearing in Section 11 of the Act was relied upon but the Division Bench doubted its correctness, hence, referred the matter to Larger Bench.
(3.) The Division Bench while making reference passed the following order: - "Civil Writ Petition Nos.5265, 5271 and 5343 of 1992, are being taken up together as they involve adjudication of a common question of law. Counsel for the petitioner contends that as on the date of filing of petition, Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act'), the Gram Panchayat was not empowered to file a petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, the impugned orders may be set aside. Reliance for the above argument is placed upon a Division Bench judgment in Gurnam Singh v. The District Development Officer (Collector) Patiala and another, 1988 PunLJ 497. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused Section 11 of the 1961 Act and the judgment in Gurnam Singh v. The District Development Officer (Collector) Patiala and another . A relevant extract from the judgment, reads as follows:- 7. No decision of this Court except some observations by J.V.Gupta, J., in The Gram Panchyat village Salem Shah v. Sadhu Ram, 1987 PunLJ 414, has been brought to our notice wherein it may have been held that if the person in possession raises any question whether any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not shamilat deh vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat, the Collector acting under Section 7 has to stay the proceedings till the question is got decided under Section 11. Gupta, J., in Sadhu Ram's case , however, observed that if the suit land is shwon in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat as per the revenue record, it will be deemed to have been vested in the Gram Panchayat and any person who wants to challenge the same, may approach the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. If the shamilat deh as defined in the Act was confined to the lands situated outside the abadi deh or gorah deh the anomaly noticed above could be solved by adopting the view expressed by Gupta, J., but the shamilat deh also includes the streets, lanes, playgrounds, schools, drinking wells or ponds within the abadi deh or gorah deh. No revenue record is maintained regarding the lands or sites situated within the abadi deh or gorah deh. Consequently, if an application is made by the Panchayat for seeking possession of any site within the abadi deh claimed to be used by the village community as street, lane or playground etc. and the person in possession denies such a claim, the Collector has to take a decision after summary enquiry on the respective claims of the parties. such a decision, if goes against the Panchayat, it will have no forum to challenge it because the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to go into such a question is barred by Section 13 and the suit under Section 11 by it is not competent. So the view expressed by Gupta, J., would not be a complete remedy to remove the anomaly noticed above. 8. After thorough consideration of the matter, we have come to the conclusion that the anomaly, could be removed, if at all, only by striking down the provisions of Section 11 being discriminatory but as there is no challenge to the vires of the said section, it is not open to us to consider this matter in detail and express our opinion thereon. So we have no option but to leave the matter for Government to take necessary steps and remove the anomaly by proper amendment. 9. In view of our finding that the Panchayat has no right to take proceedings under Section 11 of the Act the last part of the order of the Collector wherein a right has been reserved that the Gram Panchayat, if so chooses, may again file application under the Act after getting the ownership question decided under Section 11 of the Act, is quashed. No costs.";