JUDGMENT
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The respondent-panchayat had filed an application under Section 11 & 13-B of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for declaration of title in respect of the land measuring 32 kanals. The said application was allowed-by the Collector, Patiala on 15.11.1984 and it was held that Bhagat Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners came in possession of the land in dispute from the year 1963-64 vide jamabandi Annexure P.3. It was found that the respondent has not been able to prove his possession on the land in dispute prior to 26.1.1950.
2. The appeal against the said order was dismissed. However, this Court remanded the matter to the Commissioner for re-determination of the issue whether the land in dispute vest in the gram panchayat vide order dated 13.11.2002. The appellant against the said order has been dismissed on 16.12.2002.
3. The claim of gram panchayat has been decided along with an application filed by one Didar Singh under Section 11 of the Act vide a common order. Vide separate order passed today in CWP No. 1648 of 2002 Didar Singh v. The Director Rural Development and Panchayat and Ors., the order passed by the Commissioner has been upheld and the writ has been dismissed. The petitioners have not been able to prove that their predecessor-in-interest was the purchaser of the land or that their predecessor-in-interest has purchased the land from Maharaja.
4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the application under Section 7 filed by the panchayat was earlier dismissed on 25.8.1976 and again on 8.4.1982 and thus, application under Section 11 of the Act on behalf of the Panchayat was not maintainable in the year 1982. It was submitted that the gram panchayat was given right to seek determination of title only by virtue of amendment in Section 11 of the Act vide Punjab Act No. 25 of 1993.
5. However, we are unable to accept such contention. The proceedings under Section 7 of the Act are summary in nature, whereas in case of dispute regarding the right, title or interest in the shamilat land, the same can be determined only under Section 11 of the Act. A perusal of the order dated 25.8.1976 would show that notice, served under Section 7(2) of the Act was withdrawn, whereas subsequent application under Section 7 of the Act was dismissed on 8.4.1982 as an application under Section 11 of the Act was filed by the Panchayat. It is the said application under Section 11 of the Act which has now been decided by the Commissioner.
6. The contention that the panchayat was not competent to institute an application under Section 11 of the Act in the year 1982 is devoid of any merit. Writ Petition No. 2090 of 1988 filed by the petitioner was decided by this Court on November, 13, 2002 and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner on a limited question whether the land at all vests in the gram panchayat. The learned Appellate Authority has held that the land vested in panchayat. Thus, it is not open to the petitioners to dispute the question of jurisdiction of the Collector at this stage. The petitioners have suffered no prejudice. The Collector and the Commissioner has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the petition after 1993.
7. Faced with this situation, the petitioners submitted that the petitions cannot be dispossessed unless and until an application is moved by the Panchayat under Section 7 of the Act. Since the rights of the Panchayat have been settled in the proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, the Panchayat is at liberty to initiate the proceedings for taking over the possession under Section 7 of the Act.
For the reasons recorded, the present writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- S.S. Nijjar, J.