Gram Panchay nchayat Mavi Sappan v. Ve State of Punjab unjab and others
Case Details
CWP No.27473 of 473 of 2017 (O&M) IN THE H THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A JAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO RESERVED DATE OF DECISION: P NO.27473 OF 2017 (O&M) VED ON: AUGUST 22, 2025 ION: SEPTEMBER 12, 2025 Gram Panchay nchayat Mavi Sappan ...Petitioner Versus Ve State of Punjab unjab and others ...Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP CORAM : HO HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPIT HO DEEPAK SIBAL APITA BANERJI Present : Mr Mr. C. L. Premy, Advocate with Ms Ms. Amarjit Kaur, Advocate and Ms. Raman Rekhi, Advocate, Ms For the petitioner. For Mr. Himanshu Raj, Addl. AG, Punj Mr , Punjab. LAPITA BANE ANERJI, J. Under Challenge in the instant writ Un nt writ petition is an order dated June 09, 2016 2016 (Annexure P-23) passed by ed by respondent No.2-Joint Development C ent Commissioner (RD), Rural Dev l Development and Panchayat, Punjab, (exercis xercising the powers of Commissione ssioner), under Section 11(2) of the Punjab Vill b Village Common Lands (Regulatio ulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as to as “the 1961 Act”) and an ord order dated July 25, 2011 (Annexure P-21 21) passed by respondent No.3 No.3-Collector-cum-Divisional Deputy Director irector Panchayats, Patiala. 2. The brief facts of the case are as fol The e as follows: SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.12 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 10 CWP No.27473 of 473 of 2017 (O&M) i) The private respondents No.4 and The .4 and 5 instituted proceedings under Section 1 tion 11 of the 1961 Act for declaring laring them as the owners of the land comprising prising of Khasra No.40//19 (2-16), 20 16), 20 (8-0), 21 (6-8), 41//1 (2- 10), 42//5 (8-0), 0), admeasuring a total of 28 Kan 8 Kanals 04 Marlas, situated at village Mavi S atiala. Sappan, Tehsil and District Patiala ii) Respondents No.4 and 5 claimed Res ed to be the Khewatdars of the village who who were in continuous possession ession of the land through their predecessors, sin since January 26, 1950. iii) Respondents No.4 and 5 trace Res their interest in the land through one Gu ne Gujjar Singh from whose sons they they claim to have purchased the land. The s The said Gujjar Singh along with one Meha Singh were in cultivable posse ssession of the disputed land prior prior to Gujjar Singh’s interest being transferre sferred to his sons and from his sons is sons to the respondents No.4 and 5. iv) Through Mutation No.417, the Th name of Nagar Panchayat was recorded as as owner on the basis of a govern overnment letter dated June 06, 1957, whereas b ereas before that the land was recorded corded as “Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat at”. v) The case of respondents No.4 an The o.4 and 5 in their application under Section 1 ction 11 of the 1961 Act was that that they were in continuous possession of th n of the land since 1981 and the dis the disputed land does not fall within the defin definition of “Shamlat” and is in the n in the nature of “Bachat” land. vi) Respondents No.4 and 5 claimed Res laimed that neither the Gram Panchayat is ow t is owner of the land nor is it in posse n possession of the land and the SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.12 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 10 CWP No.27473 of 473 of 2017 (O&M) same was neve never used for any common purpo purpose of the village. It was contended in S in Section 11 application that sin since Gujjar Singh was in possession of th n of the land before the consolidation, ation, the disputed land did not fall within the d n the definition of “Shamlat” under S nder Section 2 (g) of the 1961 Act. vii) The Gram Panchayat contested The tested the application under Section 11 of th 1 of the 1961 Act by filing a reply. ply. The case of the petitioner- Gram Panchaya chayat was that the said Gujjar Singh Singh/his sons could only show the possession o ion of the land since 1980 and not nd not before that. The land in question was alw always in the nature of “Shamlat” lat” land and was reserved for common purpo purposes since consolidation. Henc Hence, the mutation of the disputed land w and was correctly made in the name of ame of Gram Panchayat. viii) The petitioner-Gram Panchayat The hayat had filed a previous application unde under Section 7 of the 1961 Act aga against Gujjar Singh wherein ultimately Guj Gujjar Singh’s possession in the disputed land was established. Thi d. This Court vide order dated March March 22, 1995 passed in CWP No.1718 of 198 of 1981 had set-aside the order of ev r of eviction dated January 09, 1980 passed by ed by the Collector against Gujjar Sing ar Singh, as upheld in appeal by the Joint Directo irector Panchayats, vide order dated M dated March 11, 1981. ix) The Divisional Deputy Direct The Director-cum-Collector while deciding the Se Section 11 application under the 1 r the 1961 Act, vide impugned order dated Ju ted July 25, 2011 (Annexure P- -21), held that since the respondents No. ts No.4 and 5 had purchased 22 Kana Kanals 19 Marlas of land vide Vaseeka dated dated May 14, 1998 and 14 Kanals anals 16 Marlas vide Vaseeka SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.12 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 10 CWP No.27473 of 473 of 2017 (O&M) dated October 3 ober 31, 2002 from sons of Gujjar Sin jar Singh, they became the legal owners of the la f the land in question. Out of the pur he purchased land, the disputed land admeasures asures 28 Kanals 04 Marlas. x) Furthermore, the Collector held th Fur eld that no documentary proof was brought on ght on record by the Gram Panchay nchayat to show that the land belonged to Gra to Gram Panchayat. xi) Challenge was made to the said ord Cha aid order dated July 25, 2011 by the Gram Panc Panchayat by filing Appeal No.23 No.23/2012 dated 17.02.2012 under Section 11 ion 11 (2) of the 1961 Act. xii) Vide Vid ated impugned order dated June 09, 2016, the Commissioner ioner observed that the Gram Panch Panchayat did not place any document on th on the basis of which its ownersh nership could be proved and respondents No ts No.4 and 5 being the khewatdars/ atdars/proprietors of the village had succeeded t eded to prove their ownership on the b n the basis of record. Therefore, it was held that d that the disputed land did not vest in vest in the Gram Panchayat and the appeal was d l was dismissed. (xiii) The Gram Panchayat has approach The proached this Court challenging impugned order orders dated June 09, 2016 (Annexur nexure P-23) and July 25, 2011 (Annexure P e P-21) passed by the Collect ollector and Commissioner, respectively. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel appearing on beha Lea n behalf of the petitioner-Gram Panchayat subm t submits that perusal of the revenue r enue records for the year 1959- 60 till 2014-15, 15, including Girdawari for the yea the year 2010-11, would clearly establish that that the petitioner-Gram Panchayat hayat was recorded as “Nagar SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.12 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 10 CWP No.27473 of 473 of 2017 (O&M) Panchayat Majk t Majkoor” in the ownership column column. Various persons were recorded in the in the cultivators’ column as “Kastka Kastkar” in different periods of time, over the d r the disputed land. As per the 1961 A Act, when in the ownership column of the d f the disputed land “Nagar Panchayat hayat Majkoor” is recorded, the nature of the the land was “Shamlat” and the d the same was in absolute ownership and c and control of the petitioner. The lan he land was mutated in favour of the Gram Pan m Panchayat as early as in the year 19 ear 1954 and it is in continuous possession of th n of the petitioner. 4. It is also submitted that a perusal o It i rusal of the Jamabandis for the year 1994-95 95 would clearly show that “Na “Nagar Panchayat Deh” is recorded in the in the ownership column and the nam e names of Darbara Singh and Barkha Singh, ingh, being sons of Gujjar Singh/ pr gh/ predecessors-in-interest, of respondents No ts No.4 and 5 have been recorded i rded in the cultivation column no.5. Therefore refore, the revenue record would c ould clearly establish that the predecessors-in in-interest of the respondents N nts No.4 and 5 were only in cultivating poss g possession of the land and not the ot the owners of disputed land. Since the prede predecessors-in-interest- Darbara Sing ra Singh and Barkha Singh had no ownership rship rights, they could not have have transferred the same to respondents No. ts No.4 and 5. 5. Both Darbara Singh and Barkha S Bot rkha Singh were unauthorised/ illegal occupan cupants and unauthorizedly execute xecuted a General Power of Attorney in fav in favour of respondent No.5 for man managing, using, cultivating etc. the land in and in dispute. He submits that non non-production of the vital documents by th by the private respondents which w hich were absolutely crucial for SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.12 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 10 CWP No.27473 of 473 of 2017 (O&M) determining the ng the issue of ownership was not co not considered by the Collector while passing th sing the impugned order dated July 2 July 25, 2011 and also by the Commissioner ioner while passing impugned orde order dated June 09, 2016. Therefore, the im , the impugned orders should be quash quashed and set-aside. Notice of motion was issued on De No on December 02, 2017. Respondents No.4 and 5 filed thei Res ed their replies, pursuant to the 6. 7. said notice. 8. Learned counsel for respondents N Lea ents No.4 and 5 submits that the Gram Panchaya nchayat filed an application under Se der Section 7 of the 1961 Act against their p eir predecessor-in-interest-Gujjar Sin jar Singh, alleging that he had forcibly acquire cquired the land belonging to the G the Gram Panchayat. The said Gujjar Singh lo long prior to the institution of th of the Section 7 proceedings, had filed a suit a suit for recovery of possession of l n of land including the land in dispute from th rom the Gram Panchayat. The said said suit was decreed by the Senior Sub Judg Judge, Patiala on May 27, 1968 and and the decree passed therein remained uncha unchallenged. Therefore, he submit submits that the possession of Gujjar Singh wa gh was established by a Court of Law f Law. 9. The Collector, vide order dated The dated January 09, 1980 had erroneously allo allowed the eviction petition filed filed under Section 7 of the 1961 Act in fa in favour of the Gram Panchayat, , despite decree of a civil Court and the s the same was upheld by the Joint Joint Director Panchayat- and Commissioner ioner vide order dated March 11, 11, 1981. Gujjar Singh had challenged the d the said orders by filing the wri he writ petition bearing CWP No.1718 of 198 of 1981. Vide order dated March 22, ch 22, 1995, a Single Bench of SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.12 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 6 of 10 CWP No.27473 of 473 of 2017 (O&M) this Court set rt set-aside the orders passed by d by the Collector and the Commissioner ioner, by holding that the decree pa ree passed by the Senior Sub Judge on May 2 May 27, 1968 had to be taken into con to consideration by the revenue authorities till s s till such time it was proved that the hat the decree was obtained by collusion or frau or fraud. Since there was no challenge allenge to the decree of the civil Court, the pos e possession of Gujjar Singh rem h remains firmly established. Therefore, he co he contended that not only possessi ssession but also ownership of the respondents ndents No.4 and 5 over the dispu disputed land could not be challenged again d again through this petition. 10. This Court has heard learned cou Thi ed counsel for the parties and perused the mat e material on record. 11. By filing of the civil suit which w By hich was decreed on May 27, 1968 by the C the Civil Judge, Gujjar Singh/prede /predecessor-in-interest of the vendees of resp respondents No.4 and 5 may have y have been able to prove his possession on t n on the disputed land but the sam e same does not, in any way, determine his ownership of the disputed land. land. 28 Kanals 04 Marlas land situated in villag village Mavi Sappan, Tehsil and Dis nd District Patiala, is a valuable piece of land land and revenue records have to be looked into while determining its its ownership. No document has b has been brought on record to prove the owne ownership of respondents No.4 and .4 and 5. From the impugned orders, it appe appears that no such record was was either produced by the respondents No ts No.4 and 5 or called for by the by the revenue authorities and considered by d by them, while determining th ing the issue of ownership. Therefore, this his Court is of the opinion that that material evidence/crucial SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.12 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 7 of 10 CWP No.27473 of 473 of 2017 (O&M) documents have s have not been considered by the y the authorities below while determining the land. ng the ownership of the disputed land. 12. It is a well-settled proposition of la It is n of law that the writ Courts are well within the in their authority to review an order order/interfere with a decision passed by a qua quasi judicial authority when a relev a relevant piece of material that would have sign ve significant bearing on the decision cision has not been considered by the authoritie thorities, while arriving at the decision ecision. It is the propriety of the decision making making process that has to be taken taken into consideration by the Courts while sit sitting in Judicial Review. 13. A beneficial reference may be mad A b e made to a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Sup le Supreme Court in B. C. Chaturved urvedi v. Union of India and others 1995 (6) (6) SCC 749, where it has been held en held as under: “xx xxx 12. Judicial review is not an app 12. review of the manner in which the rev of judicial review is meant to en of rec receives fair treatment and not to e whi which the authority reaches is nece of the court. of t appeal from a decision but a the decision is made. Power to ensure that the individual t to ensure that the conclusion necessarily correct in the eye xxx” xxx 14. In Narinder Mohan Arya v. Uni In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others hers, 2006 (4) SCC 713, it was held s held by the Apex Court that it is imperative fo tive for the writ Court to bear in min in mind the distinction between “some evidence ence or no evidence” and whether “ ether “some evidence” adduced would lead to th d to the authorities to arrive at a final a final conclusion. There has to be a nexus betw s between the evidence adduced and t and the final conclusion and if SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.12 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 8 of 10 CWP No.27473 of 473 of 2017 (O&M) there is no evide o evidence at all or no nexus between tween the evidence adduced and the final conclus onclusion, the decision can be interfer nterfered with. 15. In Union Bank of India v. Biswan In swanath Bhattacharjee, Civil Appeal No.8258 8258 of 2009 after considering the pr the precedents, it has been held by the Supreme preme Court that the consistent view w view was that where a decision is based on “no no evidence” or consideration of ion of an irrelevant material or ignoring of rel of relevant material or is with mal mala fide intent or that the findings are pe are perverse or that it could not hav ot have been rendered by any reasonable pers e person placed in the like circumsta umstances, the remedies under Article 226 of 26 of the Constitution of India wo ia would be available to the petitioners and i s and intervention in such a matter wou ter would be warranted. 16. In view of the law laid down by th In v n by the Apex Court and as the relevant revenue evenue records which are crucial for al for determination of the title of the land in qu d in question, have not been considered sidered by the learned Collector and the Comm Commissioner, the impugned order orders dated June 09, 2016 (Annexure P-23 23) and dated July 25, 2011 (Ann (Annexure P-21) are set-aside. Petition under nder Section 11 of the 1961 Act i Act is remanded back to the learned Collecto ollector for a fresh decision after taki taking into consideration any fresh/relevant vant documents brought or to be brou e brought on the record by the parties. An oppo n opportunity of filing reply will be p ll be provided to the petitioner- Gram Panchaya nchayat and all the interested part parties will be heard by the Collector prior t prior to passing of a decision, within ithin six months from the date of communicatio nication of this order. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.12 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 9 of 10 CWP No.27473 of 473 of 2017 (O&M) 17. Till such time a decision is arrive Til arrived at in the petition filed under Section 11 tion 11 of the 1961 Act, status-quo wi with regard to possession of the land is direc s directed to be maintained. 18. With the directions aforesaid, CW Wi id, CWP No.27473 of 2017 is
Decision
disposed of. 19. Connected applications, if any, sha Con ny, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (DEEPAK SIB DGE JUDGE SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI) (LA JUDGE SEPTEMBER Shalini BER 12, 2025 Whether speakin Whether reporta speaking/reasoned: reportable: Yes/No Yes/No SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.12 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 10 of 10