- (1.) This order shall dispose of aforementioned two writ petitions i.e. CWP No. 20720 of 2008 wherein challenge is to an order dated 26.03.2008 passed by the Joint Development Commissioner exercising the powers of the Commissioner in a petition filed under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and CWP No. 18694 of 2008 wherein the orders passed against the petitioners in proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 are subject matter of challenge. Since both the writ petitions relate to the same land, the same are being taken up for final hearing together today itself with the consent of the parties. The consolidation in the village was undertaken in the year 1959. As per the petitioners, the land in question measuring 199 kanals 11 marlas is in the ownership of Mustarka Malkaan and, thus, is a Bachat land owned and possessed by all the right-holders of the village. Having said so, it is further averred that to meet out the requirements of common purposes of the village, pro rata cut was imposed upon the proprietors of the village including the petitioners' ancestors. By such cut, 622 kanals 7 marlas of land was recorded in the name of Jumla Mustarka Malkaan; 385 kanals 8 marlas was utilized for common purposes and land measuring 230 kanals 8 marlas was left as excess land. In reply, it was, inter alia, asserted that the Gram Panchayat has been leasing the land in question from time to time since the year 1961, the same having been reserved for common purposes during consolidation. It was in the year 1999, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 42 and 43-A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short 'the 1948 Act') claiming shares in the Khewat owned by Jumla Mustarka Malkaan for the reason that the land is Bachat land and vest with the proprietors. Such application was allowed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, on 02.08.2000. It was, inter alia, observed as under: "5. The proprietors who are willing to get the Bachat land partitioned shall be allotted Kuraas and those who do not want to get the Bachat land partitioned should be allotted a joint Kurrah but their names & their shares in such land shall be defined in the order. 6. Before partitioning the Bachat land the latest position of such land on the spot should be got checked and if any part of Bachat land has been utilized after consolidation for common needs or connivance of the village then such land should be excluded from partition. If any proprietors has built a house an such Bachat land and the possession is within his share then such built up area should be preferably allotted to such proprietors in order to mitigate the chances of litigation on such account."
(2.) Such order was challenged by the Gram Panchayat in CWP No. 13708 of 2000. Such writ petition was dismissed by speaking order on 22.03.2001. The arguments raised on behalf of the Panchayat that the order passed by the Director is wholly without jurisdiction as the Director, Consolidation could not have gone into a question of ownership and that the petition was filed after a gross delay, was negated. The Court held to the following effect:- "It is not disputed that even in the latest revenue entry, the village proprietary body has been recorded as the owner of the land in dispute. Nothing has been placed on the record of the this Court which may even, prima facie, indicate that the finding of the Director with regard to the ownership of the land having remained in the name of the proprietary body was wrong in fact, the question of title was never raised before the Director. This being the factual position, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the authority that the land had continued to remain in the ownership of the proprietary body. Mr. Jasbir Singh contends that the petition should have been dismissed on the ground of delay. In other words, the rightful owners of the property should have been denied possession of the land only because they had not objected to the Panchayat managing the affairs of the property for a certain duration of time. We find no ground to accept this contention. Firstly, the competent authority has considered the matter and taken a possible view. Secondly, there is no equity or justice in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly, the land belongs to the respondents and other land owners of the village. The petitioner had somehow managed to remain in possession. It has only derived underserved benefit. It has not lost anything with the passage of time nor has any right accrued to the petitioner. In such a situation, the petitioner cannot take the benefit of its own wrong of having remained in wrongful possession nor can the benefit be denied to the respondents who were illegally deprived of the right to enjoy their property."
(3.) Special Leave Petition against the said order was filed, which was dismissed without any speaking order on 09.07.2001.;