IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 101 CWP-10241-1994 (O&M) Reserved on : 27.04.2026 Pronounced on : 29.04.2026 PARTAP SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND ORS. ...Petitioners Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Argued by :- Mr. Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jasman Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Deepak Vashisht, DAG Haryana Mr. Chaman Deep, Advocate for respondent No.4 *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of orders whereby Revenue Authorities have decreed claim of private respondents. 2. The private respondents (plaintiffs) being villagers of Village Ladpur Tehsil Sonipat on 20.09.1984 filed a suit for permanent injunction against Partap and Ors. (defendants) before Assistant Collector, Sonipat. The plaintiffs alleged that land measuring 31 kanals in khewat No.1 Min and 33 Min khata No.1 min and 55 killa No.21/28 (12 marlas) and 27 measuring 31 kanals 8 marlas situated in village Ladpur Tehsil Sonepat is in the possession of residents of the village Ladpur for last 100 years and DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.04.29 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10241-1994 -2- that a pacca well for drinking purpose is situated therein and the residents of the village take water from the said well. The said land is used for common purposes of the village. Partial land is used as ‘Khera’ where residents of the village perform plays and play games. The land is also used for holding meetings and celebrating holy festivals, thus, the aforesaid land is used by both proprietors and non-proprietors for the common purposes for last more than 100 years. The defendants cannot claim absolute right over land. The land vests in Gram Panchayat and defendants have no right to interfere with the possession of the residents. The defendants have further no right to change use of the property. The Assistant Collector framed following questions for adjudication:- i. Whether the land in dispute vests in Gram Panchayat? OPP. ii. Whether the land in dispute is in possession of the residents of the village for the last 100 years and is used for common purposes? OPP. iii. Whether the suit is incompetent for want of impleading the custodian? iv. Relief. 3. The Assistant Collector, vide order dated 29.10.1991 passed decree in favour of the plaintiff holding that land in dispute vests in the Gram Panchayat and its residents are in the possession for last 80-90 years. The land is used for common purposes. The defendants have no concern with the same. The defendants preferred appeal which came up for consideration before Collector, Sonipat who vide impugned order DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.04.29 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10241-1994 -3- dated 06.01.1994 upheld decision of the Assistant Collector and rejected the appeal. The Collector held that appellants have failed to produce any evidence of their ownership as well as continuous cultivating possession of the land. The land is completely vested in Gram Panchayat and its residents are in possession since long. The land is used for common purposes. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are lawful owners of the suit land. Ld. Assistant Collector as well as Ld. Collector has erred in decreeing the suit in favour of the private respondent on the ground that the petitioners failed to produce the sale deed in their favour. It is settled principle that revenue records are sufficient evidence for claim of the ownership. Jamabandi of the year 1933-34 records predecessors of the petitioners as vendees of the suit land. After the implementation of the consolidation scheme in the year 1948, the revenue records from the year 1954-55 record the name of the petitioners as the owners. The same is evident from the registered Intaqal dated 21.12.1935 wherein Sisram Boda (predecessor-in-interest) was recorded as the owner of the suit land. The status report of Deputy Collector dated 20.12.2015 confirms that consideration of ₹500/- was paid in lieu of the suit land. The petitioners cannot be divested of their right due to error in consolidation exercise whereby nature of the land mentioned in the Jamabandi for the year 1945-46 as ‘Maqbuja Malkan’ i.e. ‘possession of the owners’, has been substituted by ‘Maqbuza Bashindian Deh’ i.e. ‘occupants of the village’ in the Jamabandi for the year 1954-55. The Jamabandi for the year 1971-72 records the petitioners DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.04.29 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10241-1994 -4- as owners of the suit land. The suit land is private land of the petitioners marked as ‘Gair Mumkin Khera’ which denotes the land being ‘fallow’. The same is neither being cultivated nor in the common use of the village. Entry of ‘Maqbuja Malkan’ does not denote common usage of the suit land for the benefit of the villagers. Their case is squarely covered by Section 2(g)(iii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) whereby the village common land does not include the land which has been partitioned and brought into cultivation before 26.12.1950. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that dispute qua ownership and nature of the suit land cannot be agitated before this Court. Ld. Assistant Collector and Collector have correctly passed orders on the basis of revenue record of the suit land. The petitioners have not availed the remedy of revision under Section 13-B of 1961 Act before the Commissioner. There is nothing on record to prove that the predecessors of the petitioners had purchased the suit land from certain Muslim proprietors and had since remained in cultivating possession. The Khasra Girdawari produced by the petitioner demonstrates land to be in the possession and use of the Gram Panchayat for common purposes. The suit land under the consolidation scheme was recorded as ‘Gair Mumkin Khera’ i.e. for the common use of the residents of the village. The suit land since time immemorial has been used for the purpose of drinking water well, village pit and Khera area. 6. Heard the parties and perused the record. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.04.29 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10241-1994 -5- 7. From the perusal of record, it is evident that dispute is confined as to whether suit land i.e. land comprised in Khasra No.584 Khewat No.14, land measuring 17 Bigha 19 Biswa of Village Ladpur District Sonipat belongs to petitioners and authorities have wrongly held it panchayati land. The petitioners are claiming that they are lawful and registered owners of the suit land. They have acquired title over suit land through their predecessors-in-interest. The land was purchased for lawful consideration of Rs.500/- from Muslim owners. This fact is duly recorded in registered Intqal and is consistently reflected in the revenue record commencing from 1933-34. The private respondents in 1984 filed a suit for permanent injunction before Ld. Assistant Collector, Sonipat alleging that suit land is shamilat deh and vests in Gram Panchayat. Ld. Assistant Collector vide order dated 29.10.1991 allowed their claim holding that land vested in Gram Panchayat and was used for common purposes. The petitioners preferred an appeal before Ld. Collector, Panipat who vide order dated 06.01.1994 upheld decision of the Assistant Collector. The Appellate Authority held that petitioners have failed to produce evidence of ownership of continuous cultivating possession. 8. The petitioners claim that there is not even a single revenue record which discloses suit land as ‘shamilat deh’. No where it is recorded that the land vested in Gram Panchayat. The jamabandi until the consolidation exercise was made in 1948 recorded predecessors of petitioners as owners. The status report dated 20.09.2015 prepared by Deputy Commissioner verifies purchase of suit land by predecessors of petitioners. The petitioners claim that authorities have wrongly relied DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.04.29 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10241-1994 -6- upon oral evidence and ignored registered Intqal disclosing ownership of the petitioners. The revenue record from 1954-55 i.e. after consolidation scheme of 1948 records petitioners as owners. 9. From the arguments of petitioners, it is evident that claim of petitioners is based upon revenue record. They are claiming that they are registered owners of the property. Their predecessors-in-interest have purchased the suit property in 1933-34. The petitioners are conceding that jamabandi up to 1945-46 in column No.5 reflected owners in possession. The entry was ‘Maqbuja Malkan’ means ‘possession of the owners’. After consolidation, in the column No.5 of the jamabandi name of cultivator was recorded as ‘Maqbuza Bashindian Deh’ means ‘occupants of the village’. 10. Section 2(g) of 1961 Act defines expression ‘shamilat deh’. The said Section reads as:- “2(g) "shamilat deh" includes (1) lands described in the revenue records as shamilat deh excluding abadi deh; (2) shamilat tikkas; (3) lands described in the revenue records as shamilat, Tarafs, Pattis, Pannas and Tholas and used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village; (4) lands used or reserved for the benefit of the village, community including streets, lanes, playgrounds, school, drinking wells, or ponds within abadi deh or gorah deh; and (5) lands in any village described as banjar qadim and used for common purposes of the village, according to revenue records; DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.04.29 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10241-1994 -7- (i) [-] but does not include land which - (ii) has been allotted on quasi-permanent basis to a displaced person; (ii-a) was shamlat deh, but, has been allotted on quasi-permanent basis to a displaced person, or, has been otherwise transferred to any person by sale or by any other manner whatsoever after the commencement of this Act, but on or before the 9th day of July, 1985. (iii) has been partitioned and brought under cultivation by individual land- holders before the 26th January, 1950; (iv) having been acquired before the 26th January, 1950, by a person by purchase or in exchange for proprietary land from a co-sharer in the shamlat deh is so recorded in the jamabandi or is supported by a valid deed and is not in excess of the share of the co-sharer in the shamlat deh,. (v) is described in the revenue records as shamlat taraf, pattis, pannas and thola and not used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village; (vi) lies outside the abadi deh and was being used as gitwar, bara, manure pit, a house or for cottage industry immediately before the commencement of this Act; (vii) * * (vii) was shamlat deh, was assessed to land revenue and has been in the individual cultivating possession of co-sharers not being in excess of their respective shares in such shamlat deh on or before the 26th January, 1950; or (ix) was being used as a place of worship or for purposes subservient thereto immediately before DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.04.29 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10241-1994 -8- the commencement of this Act;” From the perusal of above-quoted Section, it is evident that as per Clause (4), “Lands used or reserved for the benefit of village, community within abadi deh or gora deh” fall within the definition of ‘Shamilat deh’. The petitioners are primarily claiming suit property on the ground of ownership and are not claiming on the basis of possession. The orders passed by authorities below as well as affidavits filed by authorities during the pendency of present petition reveal that land is continuously used by villagers for common purposes. The predecessors- in-interest of the petitioners purchased suit property in the year 1933 from Muslims, however, as per revenue record as well as findings recorded by authorities land is in continuous use of villagers for common purposes since time immemorial. The land on account of being continuously used for common purposes of the villagers falls within the definition of ‘shamilat deh’. Section 2(g)(4) of 1961 uses expression ‘land used’ besides ‘reserved’ for the benefit of the Village. It is evident from the record that suit land is used for common purposes by villagers since time immemorial. As per petitioners, their case is covered by Clause (iii) of exceptions carved out in aforesaid Section. Clause (iii) reads as:- “(iii) has been partitioned and brought under cultivation by individual land- holders before the 26th January, 1950;” The land as per record was purchased by petitioners, however, it was not brought under cultivation whereas it was used by DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.04.29 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10241-1994 -9- villagers for common purposes. It is matter of common knowledge that prior to 1960, the value of land was very small and land owners generously and sometimes to avoid land revenue used to donate their land to institutions which included village panchayat. It appears that petitioners prior to 1950 were not interested to use suit land, however, started raising claim after 1970. Their case is not covered by aforesaid exception, thus, as per considered opinion of this Court, suit land falls under Section 2(g)(4) of 1961 Act. 11. A Constitution Bench in Syed Yakoob Vs K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477 and a two judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another Vs Bikartan Das and others 2023 SCC Online SC 996 have reminded us that there are two cardinal principles of law governing issuance of writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India i.e. (i) High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record; (ii) in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.04.29 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10241-1994 -10- such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not. 12. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. Error of jurisdiction includes order by inferior court or tribunal without jurisdiction or in excess of it or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.04.29 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10241-1994 -11- impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, High Court must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised. 13. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no manifest factual or legal infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference. The petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE April 29, 2026 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Uploaded on:- 29.04.2026 DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.04.29 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document