Government of Punjab

To

1. All the Divisional De

puty Directors of Panchayat.

2. All the Additional Deputy Commissioners (Development).

3. All the D.D.P. Os.

4. All the Deputy Executive Officers (Zila Parishad).

5. All the Block Development and Panchayat Officers.

Memo No. 3806-40906 dated 14.11.2007

Subject: Administration control of the Panchayat Raj ownership

land.

1. Administration and control of the above land is very

important, yet it is done not is professional way. There is no

inventory of these lands. The open auction of these lands is

necessary. At many places the Revenue and Panchayat

Department Officers had alienated this land from the

Panchayats. There is no follow-up action taken in the court

cases belonging to this land neither the appeals are submitted

against the lower court cases. Sometimes the Departmental

officers do not know the Punjab Village common Land Act and

Rules. A conference of the Departmental Officers was organized

at Ludhiana on 1.9.2007. In this conference the experts of

Panchayat and Revenue Department spoke on the matter.

2. Inventory of the Gram Panchayat lands :- It is most

important to have the inventory of the above lands. We have to

see that there is no illegal possession upon the land and it is

given on lease by open auction. And also the B.D.O’s and E.O’s

of Zila parishads should have the inventory of the Panchayat

Samitis and Zila parishad lands.

It will be the responsibility of the B.D.O’s and

Panchayat secretaries to assure that : -

I. The agriculture land should be openly auctioned every

year.

II. They have to file the court case against the illegally

possessed lands under Section 7.

III. To take the possession of these lands of which cases have

been decided in favour of the Panchayats.

IV. They have filed the appeal in the higher court against the

lower court decisions.

The property of the Panchayati Raj institutions

should be entered in the property Register which should have

the detail of the land as of auction, income, illegal holding etc.

It is the responsibility of the B.D.Os., Panchayat secretaries

and D.D.P.Os. to follow instructions about the Panchayati land.

3. Difference between the Panchayat and Jumla

Murtarka Malkaan land: - There are Panchayat and

Jumla Malkaan lands in the Villages. There difference is

narrated under various heads:-

Matter Gram Panchayat Jumla Murtarka Malkaan

land. land.
Act and Rule Punjab Village The East Punjab
common land Holdings (Consolidation
Regulation Act, and prevention of
1961 fragmentation) Act, 1948
Rule The Punjab Village East Punjab Holdings
common lands (Consolidations of
(Regulations) Rules, fragmentation) Rules,
1964. 1949
Ownership Gram Panchayat Jumla Murtarka
Malkaan, Rule 16(1)
Administration Gram Panchayat Gram Panchayat, Section
23-A
Mutation Land should be Land should be entered
entered into the into the ownership of
ownership of Gram Jumla Malkaan and not
Panchayat and not in the individual
into Samlaat Deh ownership Rule 16 (II)
The Punjab Village East Punjab Holdings
common lands (Consolidation) and
(Regulation) Rules, prevention of
1964. fragmentation) Act 1949
To set aside Punjab Village Punjab public premises
illegal common lands Act and land eviction and
possession 1961, Section 7. rent recovery Act, 1973
section 3-4 and Punjab
Gram Panchayat
common purposes land
 eviction and recovery Act,
1976, should be read
faintly.
Auction of Village common Under Rule of
Title land Act, Section consolidation 1948, Rule
11 18.
Partition of the According to the There is no rule In
land orders of Hon’ble consolidation Act and
Supreme Court of section 42 that restricts
1985 (Jamalpur the partition.
case) There will be
no partition of
Samlaat and Gram
Panchayat land

4. The cases to be considered under P.P. Act 1973:- All

the cases belonging to the lands of rural development Zila

Parishads, Panchayat Samities are filed under P.P. Act 1973.

Jumla Murtarka Malkaan lands, which are administered by the

Gram Panchayats cases should also be filed under P.P. Act and

the Punjab Gram Panchayat (common purposes land) Eviction

and rent recovery Act 1976 jointly. The concerned officer should

file the case in the appropriate jurisdiction court. The

concerned officer will be responsible if he does not file the case

for illegal possession.

5. The cases under Punjab Village common land Act:-

All the cases belonging to the land of Gram Panchayat are filed

under Punjab Village common land regulation Act 1961, under

section 7. It is the responsibility of the B.D.Os, Panchayat

secretaries and Sarpanch to see that the control of the

Panchayat lands is maintained properly and the cases are filed

in D.D.P.Os. court for the possession of the land. It is also the

responsibility of the D.D.P.O’s to note that the cases have been

filed in the courts to vacate the illegal possession.

6. Ownership of the land:- The ownership of the land of

Panchayat samiti and Zila Parishad should be entered in

revenue record. In some villages during consolidation there is

no entry under the title of Jumla Malkaan, but it is in the name

of Individual holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of

Fragmentation) Act, 1948. These lands should be entered into

the ownership of Jumla Malkaan.

7. The land of Jumla Kurtarka Malkaan:- These lands

are identified under East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and

Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948, section 18 and rule 16

II. These are entered into the revenue record under the name of

‘Jumla Kurtarka Malkaan’ and its administration and control

lies in the hands of Panchayat. To deal with these lands we

have to see that:-

I. It these lands are under the names of Khewatdaars jointly,

then the Gram Panchayat and B.D.O’s should apply to

the revenue officer under consolidation Rule, 1949

section 16 (II) for the mutation of Jumla Malkaan.

II. As it is said in para 4 above the illegal possession cases

should be filed in the court of Collector under Punjab

Public Premises Act, 1973, and Punjab Gram

Panchayat (common purposes land) Eviction and land

recovery Act, 1976 jointly.

III. There is no question of re-partition of these lands. In the

initial Act and section 42-A, something more has been

added to clarify about partition. In Gram Panchayat

Kahra V/s Additional Director Consolidation (1997 file

8 SCC484), hon’ble Supreme Court has ordered to

restrict partition. Hon’ble High Court in the case of

Gram Panchayat Bhojo Majri (C.W.P. 10425/2007) has

restricted the partition in a case which was pending in

the court of revenue officer.

The revenue Department of Punjab had directed all

the revenue officers regarding Section 42 by memo No.

17/19/2002-MB/5/6161 dated 9.8.2007 that :-

 They should not enter the Jumla Malkaan land

into individual ownership although there may

be court orders.

 It should be clear that these lands should be

entered in favour of Jumla Malkaan, and the

opposing court cases should he ignored.

 Also these inspections are circulated to the

rural development officers undersigned by

Deputy Director (land development) by letter

No. 22486-22651 dated 31.8.2007.

IV. Jumla Malkaan land cannot be sold; there are so many

cases in civil courts which show that the said deeds are

not legal.

V. In case of Jumla Murtarka Malkaan land, no suit can be

filed under Village common lands Act, Section 11. Only

there control is with the Gram Panchayat. These lands

are given to the farmers (Patedaars) on open auction,

although the Khasra Girdawary remains on the names

of last patedaars. So it is the responsibility of the B.D.O

and Panchayat secretary to do the girdawary in the

name of new Patedaars.

9. Clarification of the Punjab Village Common lands

(Regulation) Act 1961, section 7:- B.D.Os. have the powers of

the Collector by this Act. They are advised that on taking the

decision under section 7, they may please note that:-

I. Presiding Officers should frame the issues and after that

they should solve them one by one.

II. Presiding Officers should award the loss to the Gram

Panchayat due to illegal possession as in rule 20-A of

1964.

III. Presiding Officers should verify that how the possessing

person entered into the land? Either these are the

patedaars who did not give the possession to the

Panchayat after the tenure, or are the illegal possession

holders?

IV. Presiding Officers should not involve in the title problem of

the land. If the land is in the ownership of Panchayat

and a person is in illegal possession then the land must

be vacated from him.

V. The case filed under Section 7 should not be kept pending

if it is also filed under Section 11. Presiding Officers

should see prima facie whether it is a title case or

whether it is merely a case filed for delaying the

vacation from the illegal possession. If it is not a title

case prima facie, then the vacating process should be

continued.

VI. There is no rule in the Act which legalizes the illegal

possession after fixing the price by the Collector. Under

rule 4 of the Act of 1964, it is only a clarification that if

any body had encroached the land by constructing a

house before coming into force of the Act, then he may

 be given the possession by taking its price on the

Collector rates.

VII. There is no rule to re-consider the orders of the

Collectors/Commissioner given under Section 7.

10. Explanation of section 11 of the Punjab Village

Common lands (Regulation) Act 1961:- ADC (development) and

divisional deputy Directors have the powers of Collector under

Section 11. The following points should be kept in mind during

the decision making under Section 11’

I. Time limit under Section 11, rule 21-A is that the case can

be filed within 30 days from the cause of action. The

mutation of Samlaat Deh was done in favour of the

Gram Panchayat in the revenue record under Punjab

Act 1955, PEPSU Act 1953 or Village common land

Act 1961 just after the declaration of the Act.

Naturally, the time limit for filing of the cases is

within 30 days from the date of the decision in favour

of the Panchayats. Presiding Officers considers the

date of cause of action as the date on which it came

to the notice of the petitioner i.e. after 40 years or

more, so it has been filed after time limit, which is

liable for dismissal, if there is no sound reason.

Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed in Gram

panchayat Kakrra vs. Additional Director

 consolidation case that if the is time limit is not

considered, the aggrieved person should appeal for

relief in time. There is no reason as to why he

challenged the mutations in favour of Gram

Panchayat after 30—40 years when the time limit

was just one month.

II. In case of delay there should be an application for the

relief of delay. Presiding Officers should take the

decision in case of delay before the hearing of the

main appeal in case of section 11.

III. Issues should be specified, and after that they should be

defined one by one. During the hearing of the case

the presiding officer should rely on the documentary

proof, revenue record and Gram Panchayat record

and not on oral witness.

IV. Certain presiding officers had opinioned that on the basis

of Govt. letters the mutation done in favour of the

Gram Panchayat is not legal. This explanation is

wrong. As it is explained above that the mutations

done in favour of the Gram Panchayat were under

the Act of 1953, 1955, and 1961 and not due to the

Govt. letters. In these letters the officers were only

advised that the mutations should be done according

to above Acts.
V. Some presiding officers had tried to find the differences

between the lands of ‘Samlaat Deh’, ‘Samlaat Deh

Harb Rasad Raklia Khewat’, ‘Samlaat Deh Hash

Rasad Sajra Nasab’, ‘Samlaat Deh Hasab Rasad Hal

Hissa.’ It is clarified that all these lands are the

same and there mutation should be done in the

name of Gram Panchayat. There words only

symbolizes the notional share of the Khewatdaars in

the samlaat deh land.

VI. Hon’ble Supreme Court had cleared in Jamalpur Vs.

Punjab Govt. case (A.I.R. 1985 SC 1394) that there is

only the notional share of the

Khewatdaars in the Samlaat Deh, and no partition is

to be done by the revenue officers of these lands.

VII. In some cases the evacuee share had been partitioned by

declaring these lands as evacuee land. It is against

the Supreme Court rules and it is allotted to the

illegal possession holders under the package deal

property Act. It should be assured that the evacuee

land should not be divided or partitioned. These

cases should be noticed.

VIII. Some Collectors heard the section 11 cases into the

Village common land Act Section 4. But it is wrong

because section 4(3) defends only the persons who

have been cultivating the land since before 1950. It

 does not give any right of Title. There is no provision

that after filing a case under Section 4, we can object

the ownership of the Panchayat. This issue can be

solved only under section 11.

IX. In so many cases, the decision is against the Panchayat

on the ground that it could not prove that the land

was given on lease by open auction. This is wrong. It

is only the responsibility of the party who had filed

the case under Section 11 to prove that land is not

given on lease by open auction. Secondly, the

presiding officers can certify it from the Panchayat

record, and they should not rely on the oral

witnesses. They should peep into the record of Gram

Panchayat and revenue record and should come to

the result that the land is given on lease by open

auction. This verification shall stop the co-relation

between the Gram Panchayat Sarpanch and the

lease holders.

X. To take the decision against the Gram Panchayat one

more formula is adopted, that the petitioners were

under possession since 26.01.1950 or before it. This

can be done by reading the cultivation column of

jamabandi. It is necessary to prove the following

three items to prove the possession under Section

2(a) exception III.

 A. Whether the land is partitioned.

B. Whether it is cultivated individually by the

partitioners.

C. Whether it has happened on or before 26.01.1950.

So it is necessary to fulfill the following four

conditions under Section 2 (g) exception (III):-

(A) Possession of land should not be more than

that which is in his share (share of the farmer).

The entry of Makhooja Maljaan in the

cultivation Column does not solve this motive.

(B) Whether this possession is as a cultivating

farmer.

(C) Possession should be before 26.01.1950.

(D) The land under possession should be of rent

paying.

If anyone of the above noted points is not

applicable then the land shall be considered as

samlaat Deh.

XI. Section 11 deals only with the matter whether the land is

of Gram Panchayat or not. Collector is not a

competent officer to establish the shares of the share

holders in the land, yet some officials had gone out of

their jurisdiction under this section. They have not

 only set aside the ownership of the Gram Panchayat

but have decided that the land is the property of

petitioner khewatdars.

XII. Some presiding officers had dismissed the ownership of

the Gram Panchayat on the ground that the land is

“Banjar Kadeem” (Barran land) These officials should

read the Village common land Act 2 (G) thoroughly.

All the Samlaat lands are Samlaat lands which are as

Samlaat Deh in revenue records. According to the

Act all these lands belong to the Gram Panchayat.

Similarly section 2 (G) (5) of the Act also directs that

all the lands which are used for the common

purposes are the Samlaat lands and are the

properties of the Gram Panchayat.

XIII. Those lands which are not Samlaat Deh are covered by the

graces of the section 2(G) of the Act 1961. Presiding

Officers do not read such sections which tells us

about the lands which are not Samlaat Deh. In some

cases the presiding officers had decided relief

contradictorily. At one time they say that the land is

Banjar Kadeem and on the other side they say that

same land is under the possession of the petitioner

as a cultivator from Jan. 1950.

XIV. In some case the lands which are given on lease are

transferred to the lease holders or the illegal

 possession holders on the ground that these were not

used for common purposes. To give on lease is also a

common purpose.

XV. There is done a big blunder that when Samlaat Deh is

defined as Sachat land (excess land) and then is

partitioned in Khewatrdars. Bachat land means the

lands of Jumla Mustarka Malkaan which were

deleted from the lands of Khewatdars by ratio during

consolidation for common purposes. These lands are

also controlled under Act as is specified in para 5,

and also these can not be partitioned.

XVI. Sometime the cases are decided as the decisions done by

other Collectors. Every case had its own issues and

its decision should be done on its own merits, and

not like copying cases.

XVII. It is the defined proposition of the section 11 of the Act

that the Collector is the competent official to decide

the titles of Gram Panchayat lands. If the cases come

to light before these Collectors, where consolidation

officers and revenue officers had decided the title

case, then the Collector under Section 11 can again

file the case to decide it in favour of the Panchayat.

XVIII. Collector/Commissioner is not authorized to review

the already decided cases.

11. Court cases/ Appeals:- It is seen that the Gram

Panchayats do not file the appeals against the cases which are

decided by ADC (Development), Divisional Deputy Director and

D.D.P.Os. In so may cases the sarpanch goes to the side of

illegal possession holders. It is the responsibility of the B.D.Os.

Panchayat secretary to handle the cases in different court and

should file the appeal in time. If the sarpanch is not helping

then he should be suspended and appeal should be admitted

by the administrator.

It is also the personal responsibility of the B.D.O. to

see that the Gram Panchayat cases are litigated by the learned

councilors. The cases where the Sarpanch and the private party

are in collision, they should be dealt with immediately. They

have to the file replications in different cases.

12. It is the responsibility of the presiding officer to see

that the lands of Gram Panchayats are administered and saved

properly. They should neither rely on oral witnesses nor on

tabled facts. There are so much of records with Gram

Panchayat and revenue Department which can be helpful to the

presiding officers. They are competent authorities in the

Districts and can order for every bit of the record to put in their

courts. They should check the cases where the sarpanch and

illegal possession holders are in collision. Cases of complicity

between revenue and Rural development officials should be

noticed and the report must be sent to the head office so that

the culprit should be prosecuted.

The Department should keep in mind that section 7

and 11 are judicial sections. They cannot be noticed or pointed

out without any sound reason. This is also clear that Punjab

Village common land Regulation Act 1961 section 14 does not

gives clean chit to the illegal orders of the officers. And so if the

rules and sections of the Act are disobeyed then the officials

will be prosecuted.

Signed

Satish Chandra

Secretary Panchayat

And Rural Development

Punjab

// TRUE COPY //