Land Deemed for Common Village Purposes, Cannot Be Partitioned Privately – Punjab and Haryana High Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court has reinstated the ownership of Gram Panchayat Amargarh @ Panjoli over disputed land, categorically stating that Banjar Qadim land, deemed for common village purposes, cannot be subject to private partition.
Legal Point of Judgement: The crux of the judgement lies in the interpretation of ‘Shamilat Deh’ under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, and the competence of the Gram Panchayat under Section 11 of the same Act.
Facts and Issues: The Gram Panchayat filed a petition challenging the Commissioner’s order that the land in dispute did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The land, categorized as Banjar Qadim in revenue records, was used for common village purposes. The private respondents claimed partition and cultivation possession prior to 1950, which the court scrutinized meticulously.
Court Assessment and Observations: The Court noted that the private respondents failed to prove the partition and individual cultivation possession before 1950. Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Lalit Batra observed, “The land continues to be recorded as ‘Shamilat Deh Hasab Hissa Mandarja Shajra Nasab’, i.e., the joint ownership of proprietors, which clearly indicates that the plea of respondents of private oral partition before 1950, has not been proved.”
Legal Principles and Law: The judgement was based on the interpretation of ‘Shamilat Deh’ as per the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, and the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The principle of res judicata was deemed inapplicable in this case.
Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Commissioner’s order dated 06.04.1995. The Court upheld the Collector’s order dated 13.02.1991, affirming the Gram Panchayat as the landowner and ordered the eviction of private respondents. The execution petition for eviction is to be enforced forthwith.
Date of Decision: 31.01.2024.
Gram Panchayat Amargarh @ Panjoli Vs. The Joint Development Commissioner (IRD), Punjab and others
