Bhajan Singh And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ORS




         
    








      



  !"!

#

August 24, 2022 $
 $      
 

% $ $ $   $     &&

   '(  )*'

$& $
*
$
**    )*'

& $
 $  

Present:

Mr. Narinder Singh Swaitch, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Jain, Addl. AG, Punjab.

Mr. Kanisth Ganeriwala, Advocate for respondent No. 11. 
*
$
**+&


 



 
 


   




 


 



 

 






!


$
 
%

& & '(%)


( 

 
 
 $
(   )
 *

 





  


,
-
 $)
.
-  
/



 
 



 


 
0
 




-  
/ 
 



 
/



 *
.
%


+   2
3)
4!

1  
,
5
362
 
 




$
 
 




 






'  $)


  

7





 
/



3


" 8#

8)

  

 



 







"

*  


$
#

7& 4)
 




 


  )



 
 

 

 $
()
  )


% 


* 




9
 
 


)

 


5-
:

6


  
*  


 ;
 $
  < 





$


 

 





  
 " 8#

8


$

 
3 
( $
%

1( 

)
+ 
+ 
%

& &'(%)


( 

 
 
 $ (   )
 *

 
 " 8#

8



!

 









 
)



 
$

 
% 
9

)


 )
 

 


 
 




 
 



 $

  







9
 

%=& 77#0&#

!
  



!)

$

-
 $




#!


 
/+
1%2

!8





 
$

-
 $


#
9




)


  




 



 
  
$



   )




  
 
 $

/ 
$
$
$

 

8 7# ##

:


/ *
/ )
>(?)
>
/

)
(  
+ 







  



4
9
  


 
3


% 

 

!


*


 
 






@ 

 


 
 


 $


  



" 8#

8




  



 


  



 $





  




 




 


 $


 
 

  


= 

$

-
 $



$


  


 


  

 

 




 


 



 
/+
1%2

!8

 



 $

 
  )

 $


 


  







)




#"


 

 
3 
( $
%

1( 

)
+ 

 
 



!


; 

 


 




 
 $
  




 



  



  



 $





  
 

)

 )
 

$





 
 
  



 
 

 




  )








A 
 
 



 
 
 
 







 
(








$


 

/



Act vide order dated 14.03.2013 as well as passing of order dated 06.04.2016 is a matter of record. Perusal of order dated 06.04.2016 reveals that order dated 14.03.2013 has been set aside by the learned Commissioner while observing as under:- "

After hearing the arguments of both the parties, I have reached the conclusion that 'shamlat' and 'Jumla Mushtarka' lands are separate from each other and the land in dispute does not come within the provisions of Section 2 (g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, because as per the record

of the Revenue Department, the land in dispute is the ownership of 'Jumla Mushtarka Malkaan' (proprietors of the village). The Gram Panchayat has not submitted any record to prove that the land in dispute was being used for common purposes and nor they have submitted any such record, which proves that this land was reserved for common purposes and the Gram Panchayat was having its possession over this land and they have been giving it for cultivation on the basis of auction. But as per the decision of the higher courts, the decision of this petition was to be given like a Civil Suit, which has not been done by the lower court, because neither the issues has been framed on the basis of pleadings of both the parties nor the parties have been given any opportunity to submit their evidence on the basis of issues. Therefore, by agreeing with the pleadings of the counsel for the appellants, I hereby set aside the illegal orders of the lower Court and accept the Appeal of the appellants."

%=& 77#0&#

!

$


  
,
-
 $
 



#!


$


  

  








 





; 




!




  





 $

@ 

 

   

" ##

!
 

 



0


 
 




  


!)
  
 


?




/+
1%2

!8 
 &
B
3 
    )
 
 

 



 


 
  )

 $




 





  C
/ @ 
 )



 
/
#"
 

 



3



48

#


3



8< "
 

 



 
 




!

; 

 
 

 
3 
( $
%

1( 

& % )
+ 

 


 
/



3

$



A  )
 $











 


8

#

#"

#
 

 





8  0# ##)
  )
 


@ 

 $
   









 




 




  
 

 



$
 

$
  
 






A  )


 

 ;)



  *





 )


 $



  
 

 
3 
( $
%

1( 

& % )
+ 
 4 4# ##

D  




 
 

 
 )

 





#"


$

 
3 
( $
%

1( 

)
+ 






 


;
 


  


9
 
 
 


;



  




  

 )
  $)





(LISA GILL) JUDGE August 24, 2022 (HARSH BUNGER) Rts JUDGE =

 <   
E <

= 
E <