Present: Mr. Sarjit Singh Senior Advocate with Vs. State of Punjab and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1066895
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-15-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr. Sarjit Singh Senior Advocate with
RespondentState of Punjab and Others
Excerpt:
civil writ petition no.735 o”1. in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh civil writ petition no.735 of 2013 date of decision:15. 1.2013 baldev singh and others .....petitioners.versus state of punjab & others .....respondents. coram: hon'ble mr.justice rameshwar singh malik present: mr.sarjit singh, senior advocate with mr.vikas singh, advocate for the petitioners.*** 1.whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?.”2. to be referred to the reporters or not?.”3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. rameshwar singh malik j. the present petition is directed against the order dated 21.12.2010 (annexure p-7) passed by the learned deputy commissioner, patiala and the order dated 8.3.20011 (annexure p-8) passed by the naib tehsildar, rajpura, district patiala, in compliance of the order dated 18.5.2009 passed by this court in cwp no.12667 of 2007 (annexure p-5) (mann singh and others versus state of punjab and others).shorn of the detailed background of the case, it would suffice to refer to the order dated 18.5.2009, passed by this court, civil writ petition no.735 o”2. while disposing of three writ petitions bearing cwp no.12176 of 2007, 12667 of 2007 and 18249 of 2007. the main order was passed in cwp no.18249 of 2007(baldev singh and others versus state of punjab and others).which has been appended at annexure p-6 and the same reads as under:- “this order will dispose of three civil writ petition nos.12176, 12667 and 18249 of 2007. facts are taken from civil writ petition no.18249 of 2007. long age civil suit was filed by father of the petitioners alongwith other right holders.which was decreed on 30.11.1972. it was held that the land in dispute does not vest in the gram panchayat. validity of this decree was challenged by the gram panchayat through another civil suit which was dismissed on 18/5/1983. it appears that subsequently father of the petitioner was evicted on an application filed under section 7 of the punjab village common lands (regulation) act (hereinafter referred to as the act) father of the petitioner then filed civil writ petition on 4.1.1996. the writ petition was allowed and the orders passed under section 7 of civil writ petition no.735 o”3. the act was set aside. the gram panchayat filed a letters patent appeal against this order, which was also dismissed. special leave petition filed by the gram panchayat was dismissed on 10/7/1996. it is alleged that without any authority, the gram panchayat has passed a resolution to grant leases of the land in favour of respondents no.4 and 5 on 2/7/2007. accordingly, the present writ petition is filed to challenge this action of the gram panchayat. notice of motion was issued. gram panchayat has filed reply. it is not denied that this land has been held to be belonging to the shareholders and proprietors like the petitioners.it is, however, stated that the gram panchayat is using this land for common purposes of the village and the gram panchayat will not have any objection in case the petitioner or other proprietors of the village get their share in the land determined. the panchayat then would hand over the possession of the land as per the share so determined. the stand taken by the civil writ petition no.735 o”4. panchayat to hold on the land in this manner cannot be appreciated. the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that each of the proprietors would be entitled to get the possession of their land as per their respective shares. if need be the share be got determined. since the land does not belong to gram panchayat it would not be in legal position to lease this land.” in compliance of the abovesaid order passed by this court, learned deputy commissioner, issued the following communication dated 21.12.2010 (annexure p-7).which reads as under:- “letter no.44/consolidation dated 21/12/2010 subject : for compliance of order dated 18/5/2009 in cwp no.18249 of 2007 and 12667 of 2007 of hon'ble high court. reference: tehsildar, rajpura his e. no.1826/d.k.dated 29.6.2010. in reference to the above mentioned subject it is written to you that you had been required to comply the judgment of the high court completely vide this order no.7762-63 dated 7/12/2009. however, civil writ petition no.735 o”5. you have sent the same to the tehsildar rajpura and the tehsildar rajpura without considering the order has sent back the case to this office with certain objections. that the shares of the land of gram panchayat in village bakshiwala, tehsil rajpura are to be established and the powers of the consolidation officer are with the revenue officer-cum- consolidation officer, patiala. tehsildar rajpura did not entirely care to read the judgment of the high court. in which any consolidation officer or consolidation department might have been asked to establish the shares. this case was sent to director consolidation punjab jalandhar for guidance. he vide his letter no.13239/p.a.dated 2/12/2010 has written that hon'ble punjab and haryana high court vide his judgment dated 18/5/2009 did not require the consolidation department to partition the land not the consolidation department was made a party in that case. this case was discussed with civil writ petition no.735 o”6. worthy deputy commissioner patiala in detail. as gurmuksh singh, manjit singh etc.residents of village bakshiwala had submitted a representation dated 7/12/2010 to this office that the orders of the hon'ble punjab & haryana high court may be complied with. therefore, complying the order of the high court in the above mentioned case, the share of every proprietor be established and the possession be given in accordance with that. this case is returned to you in original with a direction that the appropriate action be taken within one month and the report be sent back.” consequently, naib tehsildar, rajpura, district patiala- respondent no.4, sought a report from the field kanungo, vide his order dated 8.3.2011 (annexure p-8) and the same reads as under:-- “field kanungo khera gajju. no.46/reader-2 dated 8/3/11 subject : for compliance of order dated 18/5/2009 in cwp no.18249 of 2007 and 12667 of 2007 of hon'ble high court. reference:this office en.np.p.a.no.9/ civil writ petition no.735 o”7. reader-2/6-1-11. vide endorsement mentioned above letter endorsement p.a.n., copy of the order of the deputy commissioner patiala vide letter no.44/consolidation dated 21/12/2011 was sent. according to which the share of each proprietor was to be established and the possession was to be delivered accordingly. after completing the proceedings, the report was called for. in spite of lapse of so much time no report has been received from me. therefore, you are directed that the report in this concern be sent to this office at once, so that the report can be sent to the head office. naib tehsildar. rajpura. feeling aggrieved against the above said orders issued by learned deputy commissioner and naib tehsildar, petitioners have approached this court by way of instant petition under articles 226/227 of the constitution of india. learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders are without jurisdiction as the same have been passed contrary to the directions issued by this court, vide above said order dated 18.5.2009 (annexure p-6).however, during the civil writ petition no.735 o”8. cours.of arguments, learned senior counsel could not substantiate his above said argument, as to how the impugned orders were without jurisdiction or contrary to the directions issued by this court. it has come on record that the dispute about the land in question, is going on between the parties for the last about four decades. to put at rest this prolonged controversy, this court, vide order dated 18.5.2009, directed that each of the proprietor would be entitled to get the possession of the land as per his share. it was further directed that if need be, the share be got determined. thereafter, it is recorded in the impugned order dated 21.12.2010, (annexure p-7).that some residents of the village namely gurmukh singh, manjit singh etc.moved a representation dated 7.12.2010, for implementing the above said order and directions issued by this court. that is how, the order dated 21.12.2010 came to be passed by the learned deputy commissioner, with a view to comply with the order passed by this court. having heard learned senior counsel at length, after going through the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this court is of the considered opinion that neither any of the impugned orders passed by learned deputy commissioner and naib tehsildar (annexures p-7 and p-8) is without jurisdiction, not contrary to the directions issued by this court. to say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. it is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that they are being given the land less than their share, not they are alleging that civil writ petition no.735 o”9. the land which is being given to them, is of a poor quality. once, neither quality not quantity of the land coming to the share of the petitioners is being challenged, no prejudice of any kind, whatsoever, has been shown to have been caused to the petitioners.on the other hand, it seems that the petitioners are trying to keep this matter in abeyance for all times to come for the reasons best known to them, by not allowing the instant unwarranted litigation to reach at its logical end. once the sincere efforts are being made to determine the share of every co-sharer amongst the proprietors of the village, petitioners should have extended their cooperation to the respondent authorities, for completing the proceedings as the same would be in their own interest, as well. i say so because the order dated 18.5.2009, reproduced above, was passed by this court at the instance of the petitioners themselves and it is only this order which is being sought to be implemented vide impugned orders.(annexure p-7 and p-8).no other argument was raised. considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this court feels no hesitation to conclude that no prejudice of any kind, whatsoever, have been caused to the petitioners.while passing the impugned orders.further, the impugned orders have since been passed in compliance of the directions issued by this court, vide order dated 18.5.2009 (annexure p-6).the impugned orders are neither without jurisdiction not contrary to the directions issued by civil writ petition no.735 o”10. this court. the present writ petition is bereft of any and without any substance, thus, it must fail. no case for interference has been made out. resultantly, the instant petition is ordered to be dismissed. (rameshwar singh malik) judge 15 1.2013 ak sharma
Judgment:

Civil Writ Petition No.735 o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.735 of 2013 Date of Decision:

15. 1.2013 Baldev Singh and others .....PetitioneRs.Versus State of Punjab & others .....Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioneRs.*** 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?.”

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.”

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.

The present petition is directed against the order dated 21.12.2010 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Patiala and the order dated 8.3.20011 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Rajpura, District Patiala, in compliance of the order dated 18.5.2009 passed by this Court in CWP No.12667 of 2007 (Annexure P-5) (Mann Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others).Shorn of the detailed background of the case, it would suffice to refer to the order dated 18.5.2009, passed by this Court, Civil Writ Petition No.735 o”

2. while disposing of three writ petitions bearing CWP No.12176 of 2007, 12667 of 2007 and 18249 of 2007.

The main order was passed in CWP No.18249 of 2007(Baldev Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others).which has been appended at Annexure P-6 and the same reads as under:- “This order will dispose of three Civil Writ Petition Nos.12176, 12667 and 18249 of 2007.

Facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No.18249 of 2007.

Long age civil suit was filed by father of the petitioners alongwith other right holdeRs.which was decreed on 30.11.1972.

It was held that the land in dispute does not vest in the Gram Panchayat.

Validity of this decree was challenged by the Gram panchayat through another civil suit which was dismissed on 18/5/1983.

It appears that subsequently father of the petitioner was evicted on an application filed under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) Father of the petitioner then filed Civil Writ Petition on 4.1.1996.

The writ petition was allowed and the orders passed under Section 7 of Civil Writ Petition No.735 o”

3. the Act was set aside.

The Gram Panchayat filed a Letters Patent Appeal against this order, which was also dismissed.

Special Leave Petition filed by the Gram Panchayat was dismissed on 10/7/1996.

It is alleged that without any authority, the Gram Panchayat has passed a resolution to grant leases of the land in favour of respondents No.4 and 5 on 2/7/2007.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is filed to challenge this action of the Gram Panchayat.

Notice of motion was issued.

Gram Panchayat has filed reply.

It is not denied that this land has been held to be belonging to the shareholders and proprietors like the petitioneRs.It is, however, stated that the Gram Panchayat is using this land for common purposes of the village and the Gram Panchayat will not have any objection in case the petitioner or other proprietors of the village get their share in the land determined.

The Panchayat then would hand over the possession of the land as per the share so determined.

The stand taken by the Civil Writ Petition No.735 o”

4. Panchayat to hold on the land in this manner cannot be appreciated.

The writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that each of the proprietors would be entitled to get the possession of their land as per their respective shares.

If need be the share be got determined.

Since the land does not belong to Gram Panchayat it would not be in legal position to lease this land.”

In compliance of the abovesaid order passed by this Court, learned Deputy Commissioner, issued the following communication dated 21.12.2010 (Annexure P-7).which reads as under:- “Letter No.44/Consolidation Dated 21/12/2010 Subject : For compliance of order dated 18/5/2009 in CWP No.18249 of 2007 and 12667 of 2007 of Hon'ble High Court.

Reference: Tehsildar, Rajpura his E.

No.1826/D.K.dated 29.6.2010.

In reference to the above mentioned subject it is written to you that you had been required to comply the judgment of the High Court completely vide this order No.7762-63 dated 7/12/2009.

However, Civil Writ Petition No.735 o”

5. you have sent the same to the Tehsildar Rajpura and the Tehsildar Rajpura without considering the order has sent back the case to this office with certain objections.

That the shares of the land of Gram Panchayat in Village Bakshiwala, Tehsil Rajpura are to be established and the powers of the Consolidation Officer are with the Revenue Officer-cum- Consolidation Officer, Patiala.

Tehsildar Rajpura did not entirely care to read the judgment of the High Court.

In which any consolidation officer or consolidation department might have been asked to establish the shares.

This case was sent to Director Consolidation Punjab Jalandhar for guidance.

He vide his letter No.13239/P.A.Dated 2/12/2010 has written that Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide his judgment dated 18/5/2009 did not require the Consolidation Department to partition the land not the consolidation department was made a party in that case.

This case was discussed with Civil Writ Petition No.735 o”

6. worthy Deputy Commissioner Patiala in detail.

As Gurmuksh Singh, Manjit Singh etc.residents of Village Bakshiwala had submitted a representation dated 7/12/2010 to this office that the orders of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court may be complied with.

Therefore, complying the order of the High Court in the above mentioned case, the share of every proprietor be established and the possession be given in accordance with that.

This case is returned to you in original with a direction that the appropriate action be taken within one month and the report be sent back.”

Consequently, Naib Tehsildar, Rajpura, District Patiala- respondent No.4, sought a report from the Field Kanungo, vide his order dated 8.3.2011 (Annexure P-8) and the same reads as under:-- “Field Kanungo Khera Gajju.

No.46/Reader-2 dated 8/3/11 Subject : For compliance of order dated 18/5/2009 in CWP No.18249 of 2007 and 12667 of 2007 of Hon'ble High Court.

Reference:This office En.Np.P.A.No.9/ Civil Writ Petition No.735 o”

7. Reader-2/6-1-11.

Vide endorsement mentioned above letter endorsement P.A.N., copy of the order of the Deputy Commissioner Patiala vide letter No.44/Consolidation dated 21/12/2011 was sent.

According to which the share of each proprietor was to be established and the possession was to be delivered accordingly.

After completing the proceedings, the report was called for.

In spite of lapse of so much time no report has been received from me.

Therefore, you are directed that the report in this concern be sent to this office at once, so that the report can be sent to the Head Office.

Naib Tehsildar.

Rajpura.

Feeling aggrieved against the above said orders issued by learned Deputy Commissioner and Naib Tehsildar, petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders are without jurisdiction as the same have been passed contrary to the directions issued by this Court, vide above said order dated 18.5.2009 (Annexure P-6).However, during the Civil Writ Petition No.735 o”

8. couRs.of arguments, learned senior counsel could not substantiate his above said argument, as to how the impugned orders were without jurisdiction or contrary to the directions issued by this Court.

It has come on record that the dispute about the land in question, is going on between the parties for the last about four decades.

To put at rest this prolonged controversy, this Court, vide order dated 18.5.2009, directed that each of the proprietor would be entitled to get the possession of the land as per his share.

It was further directed that if need be, the share be got determined.

Thereafter, it is recorded in the impugned order dated 21.12.2010, (Annexure P-7).that some residents of the village namely Gurmukh Singh, Manjit Singh etc.moved a representation dated 7.12.2010, for implementing the above said order and directions issued by this Court.

That is how, the order dated 21.12.2010 came to be passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, with a view to comply with the order passed by this Court.

Having heard learned senior counsel at length, after going through the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that neither any of the impugned orders passed by learned Deputy Commissioner and Naib Tehsildar (Annexures P-7 and P-8) is without jurisdiction, not contrary to the directions issued by this Court.

To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

It is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that they are being given the land less than their share, not they are alleging that Civil Writ Petition No.735 o”

9. the land which is being given to them, is of a poor quality.

Once, neither quality not quantity of the land coming to the share of the petitioners is being challenged, no prejudice of any kind, whatsoever, has been shown to have been caused to the petitioneRs.On the other hand, it seems that the petitioners are trying to keep this matter in abeyance for all times to come for the reasons best known to them, by not allowing the instant unwarranted litigation to reach at its logical end.

Once the sincere efforts are being made to determine the share of every co-sharer amongst the proprietors of the village, petitioners should have extended their cooperation to the respondent authorities, for completing the proceedings as the same would be in their own interest, as well.

I say so because the order dated 18.5.2009, reproduced above, was passed by this Court at the instance of the petitioners themselves and it is only this order which is being sought to be implemented vide impugned ordeRs.(Annexure P-7 and P-8).No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that no prejudice of any kind, whatsoever, have been caused to the petitioneRs.while passing the impugned ordeRs.Further, the impugned orders have since been passed in compliance of the directions issued by this Court, vide order dated 18.5.2009 (Annexure P-6).the impugned orders are neither without jurisdiction not contrary to the directions issued by Civil Writ Petition No.735 o”

10. this Court.

The present writ petition is bereft of any and without any substance, thus, it must fail.

No case for interference has been made out.

Resultantly, the instant petition is ordered to be dismissed.

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15 1.2013 AK Sharma