1. The question before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, was whether the land in dispute was a "shamlat deh" land and as such owned by the Gram Panchayat or it was owned by the proprietors of the village. The Additional Director came to the conclusion that the respondents were the owners and proprietors of the land. The Gram Panchayat challenged the order of the Additional Director by way of a writ petition before the High Court. The petition was dismissed in limine.
2. Sections 11 and 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (the Regulation Act) are as under:
"11. Decision of claims of rights, title or interest in shamlat deh.--(1) Any person claiming right, title or interest in any land vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat under this Act, or claiming that any land has not so vested in a Panchayat, may submit to the Collector, within such time as may be prescribed, a statement of his claim in writing and signed and verified in the prescribed manner and the Collector shall have jurisdiction to decide such claim in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) Any person or a Panchayat aggrieved by an order of the Collector made under Sub-section (1), may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Commissioner in such form and manner as may be prescribed and the Commissioner may after healing the appeal, confirm, vary or reverse the order appealed from and may pass such order as he deems fit. Shamlat deh excluding abadi deh.
13. Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts.--No civil court shall have jurisdiction-
(a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not shamlat deh vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat under this Act; or
(b) to question the legality of any action taken by the Commissioner or the Collector or the Panchayat under this Act; or
(c) in respect of any matter which the Commissioner or the Collector is empowered by or under this Act to determine."
3. It is not disputed that the Jamabandi entries for the year 1944-45 --prior to the Consolidation Act read as "Shamlat Deh", "Hasab Rasat Khewat" and in the cultivation column, the entry is "Maqbooza Malkan".
4. The Additional Director interpreted the entries to mean that the respondents were in continuous possession of the land in dispute from 1944-45 onwards and on that assumption, he came to the conclusion that despite the entry in the column of ownership, the land was not shamlat deh land and as such did not vest in the Gram Panchayal. The High Court upheld the finding by dismissing the writ petition in limine.
5. We are of the view that the Additional Director, Consolidation, had no authority to go into the question whether the land in dispute was shamlat deh or not. This is a question which could only be decided by the authorities under the Regulation Act. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Additional Director, Consolidation and also the order of the High Court and send the matter before the Collector, Kapurthala, for decision in accordance with law under the Regulation Act. We make it clear that the Collector shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law irrespective of the orders passed by the Consolidation authorities in this respect. We direct the Collector to decide the matter within 2 months of the receipt of this order.