GRAM PANCHAYAT KATHEMAJRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Writ Petition Nos. 4889 of 1986 and 627 of 1987, were ordered to be heard together by the Motion Bench. In the former case, the Gram Panchayat of Village Kathumajra, is the petitioner. It prays far the quashing of the Sanad/letter of allotment dated October, 10,1985 and the subsequent transactions and mutations etc. sanctioned in favour of respondents Nos. 5 to 10. In the latter case, the residents of Village Manglore, challenge the order dated June 14, 1983 by which a mutation of the land was sanctioned in favour of the Central Government as also the allotments or transfers effected in favour of various persons. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in Civil Writ Petition No. 4869 of 1986 and are agreed that both the petitions can be disposed of by one order. In view of this position, the facts as stated in Civil Writ Petition No. 4889 of 1986, may be briefly noticed.

(2.) THE petitioner -Gram Panchayat avers that the Village Kathamajra was owned by certain muslim right holders and after the partition, they left India. The Shamlat land in the village was managed and possessed by the Gram Panchayat. Relying on the Jamabandi for the year 1981 -82, it has been averred that the petitioner is in continuous ownership of the, land measuring 245 kanals 70 marlas. It is petitioner's case that on the promulgation of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1954, it became the owner of the land in dispute by operation of law. This position was reffirmed on the enactment of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961. In spite of this, in pursuance to the letter dated August 16, 1973 issued by the Government of Haryana, the Shamlat Deh land in all the villages in the State including that of Village Kathemajra which was owned by muslims, was declared to be evacuee property. The petitioner, however, was never informed of this letter. It was not implemented in respect of Village Kathemajra. However, the Assistant Collector vide order dated October 10, 1985, allotted the land to the father of respondents Nos. 5 and 6. According to the petitioner, it came to know of this order only when respondents Nos. 7 and 8 "came to the village to take forcible possession of the land on the basis of a deed of transfer alleged to have been executed by respondents Nos. 5 and 6 in their favour." "Relying on the entry in the Khasra Girdawari for the year 1985 -86, the petitioner alleges that it continues to be in possession and that the action of the, respondent in transferring the land in favour of the respondents without giving any notice or opportunity to it, is wholly void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of the Shamlat law. It, consequently, prays for the quashing of the order dated October 10, 1985, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P -1 by which the land was transferred in favour of the father of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 as also the subsequent proceedings or transactions which may have taken place. It further prays that the respondents be directed not to interfere in its rights, title or interest and possession of the land.

(3.) ANOTHER written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 7 to 10 who are the transferees from the sons of the original allottees viz. respondents Nos.5 and 6. The respondents aver that the land in village Kathemajra is subject to river action and is excluded from the Shamlat Deh in view of the provisions contained in Exceptions (i) and (ii) of Section 2(g). It has also been averred that the respondents are bonafide purchasers of the land in dispute from the ostensible owners and as such, their rights are protected under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. According to the respondents, the petition involves disputed questions of fact "which cannot be gone into by this court in the exercise, of its writ jurisdiction." Reference has also been made to the entry in the Wajib -ul -arj to show that the land was subject to river action and as such, it does not vest in the petitioner. Reference has also been made to the mutation entry recorded on September 29, 1969 which was reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 1971 -72. According to this entry, the land was recorded "in the name of Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zare Khewat" i.e. to say, in the same proportion in which they own land. It had also been mentioned that "the land had become Shamlat Deh due to river action." The respondents further point out that the entire Shamlat Deh was partitioned amongst the custodian and owners of the Village vide mutation No. 1374 dated February 22, 1985. The land which fell to the share of the Central Government was allotted by Custodian to various persons from whom the respondents had purchased it vide sale deeds dated January 21,1986. The respondents claim that they were "put in possession of the land in dispute and are in possession of the same today as well." They also maintain that "the mutation was sanctioned in favour of the earlier allottees from the custodian and further the mutation has been sanctioned in favour of the answering respondents as well vide mutation No.1385 and 1386 dated 14.6.86." According to the respondents, the Panchayat never the owner of the land and as such, the petition is wholly incompetent. Various other averments made in the petition have also been controverted.