2 and 3 companytested the claim of the first respondent pleading that the land belonged to the Government of Punjab and it was allotted in their favour under a package deal in lieu of which the amount was also deposited in the Treasury that the possession of the land was given to them as per the order of the Tehsildar in the year 1970 and on that basis they have been in possession of the same that the mutation in the name of Panchayat was done without numberice to them, therefore, it is illegal that by mutation the Panchayat did number become the owner of the land in which there was potato farm which was Government Agency that the Government of Punjab established the potato farm by spending crores of rupees that pucca buildings were companystructed on the site and 27 crores and 9 electric motors were also installed there and that there are 12 tractors of the farm on the site.
2002 2 SCR 283 The following Order of the Court was delivered This appeal, by special leave, is from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing appellants CWP No.
The Commissioner, on examining record in the light of the companytentions of the parties, held that the documents brought on record did number link up the case with the land in question and that numberhing was placed on record to support the package deal and as to how and when the land was allotted to the Horticulture Department and accordingly dismissed the appeal on January 11, 1995.
It was further averred that the Government was spending about 10 to 11 lakhs per year on the potato farm.
the Collector under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulations Act, 1961 for short, the Act for possession of the land in dispute on the ground that the land has vested in it and the same was mutated in the name of Panchayat by order of the Tehsildar dated September 4, 1986.
It was held that the disputed land was owned by Gram Panchayat and in that view of the matter he ordered delivery of possession of the land to the Gram Panchayat.
With regard to dispute of title to the land it was numbered that appellants never brought to his numberice that the title dispute should be decided first number was any application filed for that purpose before him.
2 and 3 herein filed an appeal against the said order before the Director Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Act hereinafter referred to as, the Commissioner .
The companyrectness of the order of the Commissioner was assailed in the Writ Petition by the said appellants and the State of Punjab, which as stated above, was dismissed by the High Court by the order under challenge in this appeal.
The first respondent filed application before the Development and Panchayat Officer cum Collector, Ludhiana for short.
The Collector, after discussing the evidence placed on record by the parties, pointed out the appellant Nos.
Appellant Nos.
Appellant Nos.
