Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. - (1.) The petitioners claiming themselves to be permanent residents of Village Kalwan, Tehsil and District Patiala pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing orders dated 31.5.2013/16.6.2014(Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No. 2 vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and order dated 2.12.2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 3 (vide which the petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands(Regulation) Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as "The 1961 Act") of the petitioners, had been dismissed.
(2.) The dispute emerging for adjudication is as to whether the land in dispute is or is not shamlat deh as defined under Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act? In fact this dispute even earlier had engaged the attention of the authorities under the 1961 Act and the Courts in a long drawn litigation which had been started by one Tara Singh (now deceased) predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners when he had filed a petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act in the Court of Collector/Divisional Deputy Director Rural Development and Panchayat Punjab, Patiala for declaration of his title qua the suit land measuring 123 Kanals situated in village Kalwa, Tehsil and District Patiala, which was dismissed vide order dated 2.12.2003(Annexure P- 1). Appeal preferred by him against the said order was accepted by the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) vide order of 15.2.2007(Annexure P-2). Respondent No. 4 herein i.e. Gram Panchayat village Kalwa, Tehsil and District Patiala had challenged the said order (Annexure P-2) before this Court by way of CWP No. 6727 of 2007 whereupon the case was remanded vide order dated 30.3.2012(Annexure P3) to the Ist Appellate Authority for rehearing. After rehearing, the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed on 31.5.2013. Sequelly the respondent Gram Panchayat was held to be owner of the land in dispute.
(3.) Thereafter, notice dated 9.8.2014 (Annexure P-5) was issued by Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat calling upon the petitioners to hand over the possession. It is claimed by the petitioners that since land in dispute is Banjar Qadim, the same could not have been held to be shamlat deh land and thus in turn could not have been owned by the Gram Panchayat. It is further averred that neither there is evidence of user of the land for common purposes of the village nor it could have been so used being banjar qadim and thus, it could not have been in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. It is also claimed that record of leasing out of the land by the Gram Panchayat is also made up one and there was no occasion or circumstance that it could be called shamlat deh having vested in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. It is claimed that the civil suit filed by the petitioners for declaration and rectification of the revenue entries in their favour is also pending.;