SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) IN this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.12.2001 passed by the Collector, whereby the respondent- Gram Panchayat was ordered to recover the lease money for the period 30.4.1993 to 28.8.2000 from the petitioners with regard to the land in dispute; as well as the order dated 12.11.2004 passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat dismissing the appeal of the petitioners against the aforesaid order.
(2.) IN the present case, with regard to the land in dispute, a mutation was entered in favour of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners filed a case before the Director, Consolidation claiming possession and ownership in the disputed land, which was decided in favour of the Gram Panchayat on 4.3.1991. Against the said order, the petitioners filed C.W.P. No. 17077 of 1991. In the said petition, this Court vide order dated 20.5.1992 stayed dispossession of the petitioners subject to the condition that in case the dispute is finally decided in favour of the Gram Panchayat then the petitioners will be liable to pay Chakota to the Gram Panchayat from the date of institution of the petition till the date of disposal of the writ petition. It is admitted case that on 20.8.2000 this Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition while coming to the conclusion that the Director Consolidation has no power to go into the question whether the land in dispute was Shamlat Deh or not or the same does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. It was held that this question can only be decided by the Collector tinder the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In view of the said finding, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the Gram Panchayat to recover the lease money from the petitioners in accordance with the interim order. In view of the aforesaid order, the Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 for recovery of the amount in question as lease money for the period 30.4.1993 to 28.8.2000 from the petitioners and the said petition was allowed by the Collector vide impugned order dated 18.12.2001.
(3.) MEANWHILE , the petitioners filed a title suit under Section 11 of the Act against the Gram Panchayat for declaring them as owners in possession of the suit land, though initially the said suit was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 15.6.2001. However, on appeal filed by the petitioners, the order of the Collector was set aside by the Commissioner and the petitioners were declared owners of the suit land while observing as under : "In this case the primary question which arises for consideration is that on what basis the Gram Panchayat has derived its title over the suit land. From the record it is clear that the Gram Panchayat claims the ownership of the suit land on the strength of a mutation sanctioned in its favour of the basis of a Govt. letter. It has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court that any mutation sanctioned, in the name of Gram Panchayat on the basis of a Govt. letter has no value and can be ignored while deciding the question of title of the suit land. Therefore, mutation No. 458 dated 14.7.1956 sanctioned in favour of Gram Panchayat can not be relied upon per se. In the absence of this mutation, the character of the land would continue to be 'Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zar Khewat' implying that the suit land is the property of the proprietors/right holders of the village of which they had been in possession to the extent of their shares much prior to 26.01.50. This would also negate the ownership claim of the Gram Panchayat based on the leasing out of the land which, in any case, has not been upheld by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1997(2) P.L.J. 3. In these circumstances, the Gram Panchayat cannot be held to be the owner of the suit land as it does not come within the purview of Shamlat Land defined under section 2(g) of the Act. It has also come on record that the suit land was Banjar Qadim on 9.01.54 and was not used for any common purposes of the village. As held in 1988 P.L.J. 535 such land is not 'Shamlat Deh'. Taking all these facts into account, I have no hesitation in accepting the appeal and declaring the appellants as owners of the suit land under their respective possession by setting aside the impugned order dated 15.06.2001 ". ;