The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961

Constitution -fai Singh v.State oj Haryana, 1995HRR 69 (F.B.) = 1995(1)P.L.R.614-Thisjudgment wasreversed byHon'ble Supreme Court though ondifferentpoint.See1998H.R.R, 5H5S.c.Section 13-Bintroduced by Punjab Act, 1976is paramateria WithSection13-Dasintroduced byHaryana Amending Act, 1981-A decree passed byCivilCourtbefore Punjab Act of1976cannot beignored byauthorities unlessitissetasideonthegrounds offrauds ctc.bycompetent Court -Baldev Singh's case1983(1) L.L.R. 385 run~ contrary to 1983P.L.J. 116and 1984P.LJ. 580 - GramPanchayat VillageBatholi Kalan v.fagar Ram, 1991PLJ. 41.(F.B.)Lease-Petitioner wasleasedpondsinanareaof12acresforfishfarmingforRs. 2500/-per year as the highest bidder - Lease was granted for 10years -Petition for cancellation of lease after a lapse of 3 years cannot be acceptedwithoutexplanation forsuchalongdelay-However thepetitioner accepting thelease at the enhanced rate of Rs. 50,000/-per year for the next 3 years wasallowedtoretainthepossessionofleasedpondsfortheremainingperiod -SureshKumar v.The Collector, Rohtak, 2001HRR 69D.B.Lease - Cancellation of - A fertile land fit for agricultural purposes wasleasedbyPanchayat forthepurpose ofremovingearth tomakebricksforrunningabrickkiln-Nature oflandlikelytochangeandbecominguselessforagriculture-Panchayatgivingland onleasemustensure thatpublicinterest does notsuffer-Shorttermgainofleaseshouldnotbeatthecostoflongtermloss-Collector wasjustifiedinordering cancellation ofleaseamigrantleaseforagricultural purposeswhichwasaffirmed inappeal byCommissioner -Impugned order upheld -GramPanchayat, Nurkherian v.foint Development Commissioner, 2001HRR 62D.B.Nature ofland -Shamilat deh-Jurisdiction -Where the question ofland astowhetheritisshamilatdeh ornotisinvolvedthequestion cannotbe decided byCivilCourt-Ownership oflandwhether itvested inGram Panchayat ornot canbe decided only.:mder the Pb. Village Common Lands Act - Hazara Singh v.GramPanchayat/Gram Sabha, Village Ghel, 2000HRR 761..Pancbayat land •Common purpose -The Panchayat raised the plea thatland in question was reserved for school ground and it did not belong toKhewatdars (land owners) - Appeal ~cepted by Commissioner without anydocumentaryevidenceshowingthenature ofland-Impugned order notbased onsolidground and cannot be sustained -Petition allowed-Tehal Singh v.State ofPunjab, 2001HRR 367D.B.Pleading -Petitioner not taking the ground available to himat the time offilingearlier writ petition -He cannot be permitted to raise additional groundswhichwere already'availableto himonthe basisofprinciple ofconstructive resjudicata - Writ petition held not maintainable as petitioner failed to raise allpossiblegrounds intheearlier writpetition -Piecemealtrialofissueondifferentoccassioncan not be permitted -Petition dismissf:d-Harnek Singh v.State ofHaryana, 2001HRR 472p.B.Practice - Eviction'by force -Gram Panchayat land auctioned to anotherpersonafter the expiryofthe oneyearlease ofthe plaintiff-Plaintiff cannot beevictedbyuseofforce-Ninder Singh v.Gram Pam,hayat Bhullar, 1989HRR 653.Sbamilat deb -Where the question relates astowhether land indispute isShamilat deh ornot,thequestion canbedecided byCollector under Section 13ofPunjabVillageCommon Land Act (Asapplicable toHaryana) -CivilCourt hasnojurisdiction toadjudicate upon the matter -Surjit Singh v.State of Haryana,1998H.R.R. 16.,Sbamlat Deb -Eviction -Defendant's evictionsought byGram PanchayatfromShamlat Deh whichwasshownassuchinthe revenue reoord -Defendant