Phool Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 November, 2008

              C.W.P No.10456 of 2008                      1


              In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.

                                          C.W.P No.10456 of 2008

                                            Date of Decision: 10.11.2008

Phool Singh
                                                   ....Petitioner.

                Versus

State of Haryana and others
                                                   ....Respondents.

Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar
        Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur


Present: Mr. M.P.S Mann, Advocate
         for the petitioner.
                  ...

J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral).

Respondent No.4 moved an application under Section 7 of the

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable to the

State of Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as the Village Common Lands

Act), seeking the eviction of the petitioner Phool Singh from the defined

and specified land which was described as a part of “Shamlat Chowk”.

During the course of hearing of the present writ petition, it is the sole

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue of title

should have been settled by the revenue authorities before ordering the

petitioner’s eviction. In this behalf, learned counsel for the petitioner

invited this Court’s attention to the written statement filed on behalf of the

petitioner herein, namely, Phool Singh, before the Assistant Collector, First

Grade, Jhajjar (which is available on the record of this case as Annexure P-

8)) wherein it is the express stance of the petitioner before the Assistant

Collector, First Grade, Jhajjar, that the land in question is not “Shamlat
C.W.P No.10456 of 2008 2

Chowk” but the land in question is the ancestral property of the petitioner

Phool Singh, and further that, he had constructed a house there and has been

tethering his cattle and is using the same for household purpose. A perusal

of the averments in the written statement also reveals, that it was

specifically denied by the petitioner (Phool Singh) that the land in question

is in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat, Dighal.

It is the aforesaid solitary submission that has fallen for our

consideration while adjudicating upon the present controversy. The issue

can be determined on the basis of Section 7 of the Village Common Lands

Act, under which ejectment of the petitioner was sought by respondent

No.4. Section 7(1) of the Village Common Lands Act, which alone is

relevant, is accordingly, being extracted hereunder: —

“7. Power to Put Panchayat in possession of certain lands:-(1).

An Assistant Collector of the first grade having jurisdiction in

the village may, either suo moto or on an application made to

him by a Panchayat or an inhabitant of the village or the Block

Development and Panchayat Officer or Social Education and

Panchayat Officer, or any other Officer authorised by the Block

Development and Panchayat Officer, after making such

summary enquiry as he may deem fit and in accordance with

such procedure as may be prescribed, eject any person who is

in wrongful or unauthorised possession of the land or other

immovable property in the Shamilat deh of that village which

vests or is deemed to have been vested in the Panchayat under

this Act and put the panchayat in possession thereof and for so

doing the Assistant Collector of the first grade may exercise the
C.W.P No.10456 of 2008 3

powers of a revenue court in relation to the execution of a

decree for possession of land under the Punjab Tenancy

Act,1887.

Provided that if in any such proceedings the question of title is

raised and proved prima-facie on the basis of documents that

the question of title is really involved, the Assistant Collector

of the first grade shall record a finding to that effect and first

decide the question of title in the manner laid down

hereinafter.”

A perusal of the proviso to Section 7(1), extracted hereinabove, reveals that

if during the course of proceedings under Section 7 of the Village Common

Lands Act, a question of title is raised by the person against whom

ejectment proceedings have been initiated, such a person would be required

to “…prove prima-facie on the basis of documents that the question of title

is really involved…” In order to determine whether the aforesaid pre-

requisite to raise the question of title had been complied with by the

petitioner Phool Singh, during the course of proceedings before the

Assistant Collector, First Grade, Jhajjar, we asked for the response of the

learned counsel for the petitioner.

In response to our query, learned counsel for the petitioner very

fairly asserted, that no document was placed on the record of the Assistant

Collector, First Grade, Jhajjar, to support the claim of the petitioner on the

issue of title. It is acknowledged that only an objection (in this behalf) was

raised in the written statement, as has been noticed by us during the course

of taking into consideration the submission advanced on behalf of the

petitioner.

C.W.P No.10456 of 2008 4

In view of the above, we are of the view that the mandatory

requirement to raise the issue of title as is provided for in the proviso to

Section 7(1) of the Village Common Lands Act, was not complied with by

the petitioner at the relevant juncture. It is, therefore, not possible for us to

allow the petitioner to raise the instant plea before us.

In any case, the petitioner has placed on the record of this case

the inspection report of the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Jhajjar, dated

6.4.2004, which reveals that the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Jhajjar,

himself inspected the spot in the presence of the rival parties, as well as, a

large number of villagers and recorded his conclusions to the effect that

Phool Singh had constructed a room on the “shamlat chowk (rasta sare

aam)”, and has thereby created encroachment on Shamlat land.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are satisfied that the

petitioner has no cause, whatsoever, at the present juncture to raise the issue

of title. The same is clearly barred in view of the proviso to Section 7(1) of

the Village Common Lands Act. Even otherwise, the report of the Assistant

Collector, First Grade, Jhajjar, who had visited the spot, is clear and

unambiguous.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the

instant writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

( J.S. Khehar )
Judge

( Nirmaljit Kaur )
Judge.

10.11.2008
sk.