CWP-14769-2020 (O&M) -1- 204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** CWP-14769-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.07.2026 Parkash Singh (deceased) through his LRs and others .... Petitioners Versus Special Secretary and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: Mr. Manish Kumar Singla Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab, for respondents No.1 & 2/State. Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3/Gram Panchayat. **** JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure P-21) passed by respondent No.1 vide which the respondent No.1 has set aside the well reasoned order dated 14.02.2019 (Annexure P-18) passed by respondent No.2. 2. Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the controversy involved in the present case relates to the claim of ownership of land situated in Village Hassanpur, Sub-Tehsil Machhiwara, District Ludhiana. According to the petitioners, they and their predecessors were having ownership/proprietorship in the Jumla Mushtarkha Malkan land and were in possession from the cut-off date of BHUMIKA BHATI 2026.07.17 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-14769-2020 (O&M) -2- 26.01.1950. They filed a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the 1961 Act’) seeking a declaration of their ownership, but the same was dismissed vide Annexure P-15 and the subsequent appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a Civil Writ Petition No.21732 of 2017 and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 20.11.2017 (Annexure P-17) allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Collector, Ludhiana for fresh consideration, observing that neither the Collector nor the Appellate Authority considered the issue involved or returned any finding as to why the application under Section 11 of the 1961 Act had been dismissed. He further submitted that thereafter when the matter was pending before learned Collector after it was remanded to the Collector by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as aforesaid, learned Collector after hearing the parties and on the basis of the record, returned specific findings especially with regard to the fact that the petitioners were rather in possession of the land prior to the aforesaid cut-off date and rather their predecessors were in continuous possession of the land since 1938-39, which was about 12 years prior to the aforesaid cut-off date i.e. 26.01.1950. In this way, while complying with the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to pass a detailed order, the aforesaid order was passed by learned Collector vide Annexure P-18. 3. Learned counsel further submitted that thereafter, respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat preferred an appeal under Section 11(2) of the 1961 Act before the learned Appellate Authority, which vide impugned order dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure P-21) allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat but without recording any specific findings or BHUMIKA BHATI 2026.07.17 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-14769-2020 (O&M) -3- reversing the specific findings which were so returned by the learned Collector with regard to the possession of the land by the predecessors of the petitioners prior to the cut-off date. He also submitted that the learned Appellate Authority has passed a cryptic order and proceeded only on the basis of statements made by some of the witnesses that the Gram Panchayat has been leasing out the land to some other persons, which itself cannot become a ground for reversal of the order passed by the Collector. He submitted that it was incumbent upon the learned Appellate Authority to have considered the grounds on the basis of which the Collector had allowed the petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act and in case it was so required to have reversed the finding by recording reasons, according to the wisdom of the Appellate Authority, but the same was not done and in the absence of any reversal of the findings on facts, learned Appellate Authority could not have allowed the appeal. He submitted that in view of the above, the impugned order dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure P-21) may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Appellate Authority to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Amrik Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat submitted that the order passed by learned Appellate Authority was in accordance with law. Learned Appellate Authority has so observed that for a continuous period of time, even in the year 1990, repeated auctions were held by the Gram Panchayat and the land was leased out to various persons and therefore, the petitioners were not entitled for ownership of the aforesaid land and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that from a perusal of the Jamabandi of the land, it is clear that the Gram Panchayat was the owner of BHUMIKA BHATI 2026.07.17 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-14769-2020 (O&M) -4- the land and the land was recorded as vested with the Gram Panchayat and therefore, no illegality or perversity can be found in the order passed by learned Appellate Authority. He also submitted that the petitioners were not able to prove as to whether the land was abutted land or not. 5. Ms. Shruti, learned AAG, Punjab has submitted that the impugned order dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure P-21) has been passed in a quasi judicial capacity. 6. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the earlier orders passed by learned Collector as well as by the learned Appellate Authority. 7. In the earlier round of litigation, when the petitioners had filed a writ petition bearing number CWP-21732-2017 before this Court, a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide Annexure P-17 allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the learned Collector. Paragraphs No.6 to 9, which constitute the operative part of the judgment, are reproduced as under:- “6. It is apparent from the order of the Collector that the petitioners led documentary evidence in order to make out a case that they were in individual cultivating possession of the land in dispute before 26.01.1950 and as such the land falls under the exceptional clause(s) of Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act and it does not form part of shamlat deh. On the other hand, the Gram Panchayat led evidence to the effect that the subject land vests in it from the very inception and the petitioners were not in its possession before 26.01.1950. The land was leased out by the Gram Panchayat from time to time. Unfortunately, the Collector as well as the Appellate Authority have turned down the petitioners' claim summarily without BHUMIKA BHATI 2026.07.17 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-14769-2020 (O&M) -5- discussing the documentary evidence led by the parties. The reason assigned by the authorities below is that the petitioners have heavily relied upon the order passed by the authorities of the Consolidation Department which stood setaside by this Court vide order dated 28.07.2010 passed in CWP No.12357 of 1991. The approach of the authorities, in our considered view, is totally erroneous. While examining the case with reference to a claim raised under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, it is imperative upon the authorities to determine whether or not (i) the land was/is shamlat deh before and after 26.01.1950 and (ii) whether any co-sharer has been in individual possession of such land before 26.01.1950? 7. White answering these questions, it is obligatory on the Collector to refer to the entries in the revenue record, khatauni pamaish and consolidation scheme etc. None of these documents have been discussed or explained in the impugned orders. 8. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the jurisdiction vested under Section 11 of the 1961 Act is a substitute of the Civil Court for the adjudication of title disputes. It is thus imperative upon the Collector not only to frame the issues but also to discuss the oral and documentary evidence threadbare and then return a finding of fact as to whether the land vests in Gram Panchayat or it is owned by the proprietors. No such exercise has been undertaken by the Collector. The Appellate Authority has also done nothing except to repeat the words and phrases used by the Collector while rejecting the petitioners' claim. The Appellate Authority too has not discussed the evidence led by the Gram Panchayat. 9. In the light of the above discussion but without expressing any views on merits, we allow these writ BHUMIKA BHATI 2026.07.17 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-14769-2020 (O&M) -6- petitions; set-aside the orders passed by the Collector as well as the Appellate Authority and remand the case to the Collector, Ludhiana for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the discussion made above, within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.” 8. A perusal of the aforesaid would show that it was so observed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the earlier round of litigation that the approach of the authority was erroneous because it was imperative upon the authorities to determine as to whether the land was shamlat deh before or after 26.01.1950 and whether any co-sharer had been in individual possession of such property before 26.01.1950 or not. This was the crux of the issue involved in the present case. 9. When the matter was remanded to the learned Collector, learned Collector framed seven issues and returned a finding that the predecessors of the petitioners had been in continuous possession of the land in dispute since 1938-39, which was about 12 years prior to the aforesaid cut-off date of 26.01.1950. In this way, learned Collector/Divisional Deputy Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchyats, Patiala accepted the application filed by the petitioners. Paragraph No.9 of the order passed by learned Collector vide Annexure P-18 is reproduced as under:- “9. Petitioner nos. 1 to 5 and Petitioner no.7 through their oral as well as written arguments and documentary evidence have proved that they/their predecessor-in-Petitioner nos. 1 to 5 and Petitioner no. 7 through their oral as well as written interest are in continuous possession of the land in dispute since 1938- 39 meaning thereby their possession is 12 years prior to BHUMIKA BHATI 2026.07.17 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-14769-2020 (O&M) -7- the coming into existence the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1961 and hence it is proved that their possession is coming since prior to 26 January 1950 and they are also paying the land revenue of the same. Therefore their petition is being accepted and petition nos. 1 to 3 are declared owners of total land measuring 36 Kanal 18 Marla bearing Khasra Nos. 9//21 (8-0), 22 (8-0), 23/1 (3-8), 10/12 (8-0), 3 (8-0), 4/1 (1- 10), Petitioner no. 4 is declared owner of land measuring 03 Kanal 13 Marla bearing Khasra Nos. 3//20/1/3 (3-0), 21/1 (0-13), Petitioner No. 5 is declared owner of land measuring 10 Kanal 02 Marla bearing Khasra Nos. 19//20 (8-0), 21/1 (0-2), 21/2 (0-9), 92 (1-7), 87/1 (0-2), 87/2 (0-2) and Petitioner No. 7 is declared owner of land measuring 10 Kanal 03 Marla bearing Khasra Nos. 4//24/2 (5-0), 9//10/1/2 (1-11), 10/2/1/ (3-7), 87/3 (0-5), situated in village Hassanpur, Sub Teh. Machhiwara, Tehsil Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana and Gram Panchayat Hassanpur, Sub Tehsil Machhiwara, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana is being declared owner of land measuring 83 Kanal 16 Marla, bearing khasra Nos. 1//24 (6-16), 25/1 (6-1), 2//21 (6-7), 22 (4-0), 23/1 (1-17) 3/1 (8-0), 2 (8-0), 3/1 (5-12), 8/2 (2-17), 9 (7-18), 10 (8-0), 11 (7-18), 12/1 (2-17), 20/2 2-17), 4//4/1 (4-0), 5/1 (0-16) which is in possession of petitioner No. 6 Sh. Kulwant Singh s/o Sh. Gurnam Singh, as petitioner no. 6 Kulwant Singh had appeared through his counsel but could not produce any record/document, on the file, regarding his ownership rather the Chakota record, produced by the Gram Panchayat Hassanpur shows that the land claimed by petitioner no. 6 is being given on Chakota, by Gram Panchayat. Therefore the petition qua the claim of Sh. Kulwant Singh petitioner no.6 is being dismissed.” BHUMIKA BHATI 2026.07.17 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-14769-2020 (O&M) -8- 10. When the Gram Panchayat filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, learned Appellate Authority allowed the appeal but did not observe anything on the aforesaid specific finding of fact recorded by the Collector, which ought to have been considered, particularly in view of the aforesaid order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while remanding the matter. A perusal of the impugned order dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure P-21) passed by the Appellate Authority would show that the aforesaid issues have not even been discussed and the appeal has been allowed only on the ground that subsequently, the Gram Panchayat had been leasing out the land by way of auction to some other villagers. The argument raised by learned counsel for respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat before this Court with regard to Jamabandi which according to the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat was in the name of Gram Panchayat is also a disputed question of fact which is to be considered by the Appellate Authority. 11. We are of the considered view that if the Appellate Authority was to reverse the finding of the Collector and allow the appeal, the same could have been done by dealing with each reasoning in detail and thereafter, could have passed a speaking order of course by its own wisdom. However, while exercising the powers, the same has to be exercised in a reasonable and appropriate manner and in case, the appeal was to be allowed, then the findings were required to have been reversed by giving reasons in detail, which was never done by the Appellate Authority in the appeal. Consequently, we are of the view that the order passed by learned Appellate Authority is cryptic and erroneous in nature. 12. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The BHUMIKA BHATI 2026.07.17 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-14769-2020 (O&M) -9- impugned order dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure P-21) passed by the Appellate Authority is hereby set aside and the matter is hereby remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to all the parties or their counsels and thereafter, to pass a detailed speaking order within a period of six months from today. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy and the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal without being influenced by its earlier order as well as the present order. (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI) JUDGE 08.07.2026 (SANJIV BERRY) Bhumika JUDGE 1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No 2. Whether reportable: Yes/No BHUMIKA BHATI 2026.07.17 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh