Ajai Lamba, J.@mdashThis shall dispose of two petitions viz. Civil Writ Petition No. 1308 of 2011 titled� Fauja Singh and Ors. v. Gram
Panchayat, Kandipur, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib� and Civil Writ Petition No. 900of 2011 titled �Gurdial Singh v. State
ofPunjab and Ors.� as they involve similar questions of law and facts.
2. For reference to record, Civil Writ Petition No. 1308 of 2011 titled �Fauja Singh and Ors. v. Gram Panchayat, Kandipur, Tehsil Bassi
Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib� is being taken up.
3. On 24.01.2011, the following order was passed:
Challenge in this petition is to Orders Annexure P-3 to P-6.
It appears that the Petitioners filed a petition u/s 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961, for declaration that they are
owners in possession of the land. Vide Order dated 24.10.2007 (Annexure P-3), Collector, Development, Fatehgarh Sahib, on the basis of
revenue record detailed at Page 19 of the paper book, recorded a finding that the applicants had been taking the land in auction, and therefore,
cannot be presumed as owners of land in dispute. Mutation has been entered in the name of Gram Panchayat by Consolidation Department which
is correct. Gram Panchayat has been shown in revenue record as owner of land.
The Petitioners carried an appeal. Commissioner has dismissed the appeal while recording the following:
After perusing the written arguments of the counsel for the Appellants and arguments raised by the Gram Panchayat before the lower court and
record on the file, I have come the conclusion that in the jamabandies for the year 1973-74, 1978-79, 1983-84, 1988-89, 1993,94, 1998-99 and
2003-04, in the column of ownership Nagar Panchayat Deh is entered and in the column of cultivation, name of the Appellants is mentioned as
Gair Marusiand in column No. 9 of all these Jamabandies, entry regarding taking of this land by the Appellants, on Chakota, is there. From which
it is clear that Appellants had taken the land in dispute, from the Gram Panchayat, on Chakota and before it Gram Panchayat was also giving this
land on Chakota and the income received from the same, is being used for the common purposes of the village. Division Bench of Hon''ble Punjab
and Haryana High Court, in judgment reported as 2000(2) PLJ page569 has clearly held that Chakotedar of the Gram Panchayat, cannot
challenge the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. Appellants, them selvesadmit that mutation of the land in dispute, is in the name of Gram
Panchayat. As per record, Appellants have never challenged this mutation, in any competent court. As per the orders passed by the Hon''ble
Punjaband Haryana High Court in Sissa SinghVs. State of Punjab 2005(4) RCR(Civil) page 656 that when once mutation of any land is entered in
the name of Govt. or Gram Panchayat, through some govt. letter and affected persons has not challenged the same, in the revenue court then that
becomes final and title of that land will be changed in the name of Gram Panchayat and Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act 1870 will restrain,
any person, from challenging the same that Gram Panchayat is not owner of the land in dispute. In this way, land in disputevests in the Gram
Panchayat and Gram Panchayat is its owner. Appellants have not produced any evidence from which it is proved that they in possession since
26.1.1950. Therefore, while dismissing the appeal, orders of the Lower Court are kept intact.
The Petitioners have been fair to the Court in placing on record the revenue record that forms the basis of passing Order dated 5.3.2010
(Annexure P-6), however, the record does not help the cause of the Petitioners in so much as in Annexure P-8 i.e. jamabandi for the year 1958-
59, Nagar Panchayat Deh has been shown as owner and Maqbooja Panchayat Deh has been shown as cultivator. In the revenue record, after the
year 1973-74, Nagar Panchayat Deh has been shown as owner and Darshan Singh as the cultivator.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that it is on the basis of a Government letter that Nagar Panchayat Deh was recorded as owner in the
ownership column. Learned Counsel contends that the said order is required to be placed on record.
Learned Counsel further prays for time to place on record the first mutation under which the land was recorded in the name of Nagar Panchayat
Deh.
Adjourned to 10.3.2011.
4. In view of the findings recorded by the Appellate Forum, as extracted above, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has not been able to show any
perversity in the findings recorded by the authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The Petitioners have been
recorded as chakotedar viz. tenants. Nagar Panchayat Deh is entered in the column of ownership for the period 1973-74 to 2003-04. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, where the Petitioners were obliged to discharge the onus of showing their title over the land and they having failed
to do so, no interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is called for.
5. The petitions are accordingly dismissed.