CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4222 OF 1985 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: January 28, 2009
Sadhu Dass Chela Dharam Dass Chela Bishan Dass
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. H. S. Kathuria, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab,
for the State.
Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner has prayed for quashing of order, Annexure
P-7, directing his eviction from the land made under Section 7 of the
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, “the
Act”). He has also impugned the order passed by the Commissioner,
whereby his appeal was also dismissed
The petitioner claims to be a share holder in a land in
Village Mehma Sarja, Tehsil and District Bhatinda. He states that his
forefathers were in possession of some land, according to their share
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4222 OF 1985 :{ 2 }:
in the shamlat land, from 60 years or so. The land is shown in favour
of shamlat patti mehma in the revenue record, in the ownership
column.
In terms of the provisions of the Act, the land which was
earlier shown in the name of shamlat patti mehma, was mutated in
the name of Gram Panchayat, Mehma Sarja. Petitioner and one
Kaka Singh filed objections against this order, seeking cancellation of
the same. It was ultimately held that the land was wrongly mutated
from patti shamlat to the Gram Panchayat and order in this regard is
Annexure P-2. It is accordingly pleaded that the land was not in the
ownership of the Gram Panchayat and hence, could not fall within
the purview of the Act. Despite this position, respondent-Gram
Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 of the Act against the
petitioner as well as Kaka Singh. The said petition was dismissed, so
far as Kaka Singh was concerned. Copy of this order is Annexure P-
6. The petitioner claims that land measuring 13 Kanals 2 Marlas,
which was in possession of Kaka Singh is out of land measuring
21Kanals 5 Marlas and, thus, was not belonging to the Gram
Panchayat. The appeal against the order declining the eviction of
Kaka Singh was also dismissed. However, the petition filed under
Section 7 of the Act against the petitioner was allowed and he was
directed to be evicted from the land. The petitioner has failed in his
appeal and that is how he has filed the present petition.
No reply behalf of Gram Panchayat has been filed. The
counsel representing the Gram Panchayat, however, pleaded that
orders impugned before the court are quasi-judicial orders and so no
reply needs to be filed.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4222 OF 1985 :{ 3 }:
While allowing the prayer of the Gram Panchyat, it is
noticed that the petitioner could not show any proof in support of his
claim that he is co-sharer of patti-mehma. Reference is made to
jamabandi for the year 1965-66 to show the Gram Panchayat to be
the owner. The submission that the land was shown transferred on
the name of patti was noticed by the Collector and it was observed
as under:
“The learned counsel for respondent has ignored the
remarks in column No.3 regarding order of Assistant
Collector Ist Class, Bhatinda, dated 12.12.67. The
mutation No.5022 entries done by Patwari and other
authorities on 28.2.69 and 1.4.69 as mentioned in column
No.15 of copy Ex.R2 on the back side of this copy the gist
of order of Assistant Collector Ist Grade dated 12.12.67
has been given according to which Khasra No.520/852 to
856, ownership was transferred to Gram Panchayat
including certain area under the possession of Shri Kaka
Singh. The learned counsel for respondent has also
referred Ex.R-4 which is an unattested photostat copy of
the order of the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, dated
22.1.66, R.O.R. No.194 of 1965-66. According to which
Shri Kaka Singh etc. were applicants and Gram
Panchayat Mehma Sarja is respondent. In this order the
learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab, had set-aside
the order of assistant Collector IInd Grade, referred above
in mutation No.5022. This case was remanded to the
Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhatinda for fresh decision
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4222 OF 1985 :{ 4 }:
according to law. The order of Assistant Collector Ist
Grade, Bhatinda, as on Ex.P2 page 2 dated 12.12.67
show the rights have been conferred on the Gram
Panchayat at Mehma Sarja.”
It was further noticed that the petitioner could not link the
khasra numbers under dispute and he also did not produce on record
any document in support of the khasra numbers. Accordingly, the
application under Section 7 of the Act was allowed, directing his
eviction.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to show
that the number in the entries could be related to the one for which
the eviction of the petitioner was sought as mentioned in the heading
of the order but he could not succeed. Even otherwise, it is a pure
question of fact whether the petitioner succeeded in linking the
numbers, which were stated to be in the possession of patti. He also
could not show whether he was a proprietor being member of that
patti. Accordingly, he was unable to establish his lawful possession
over the land in dispute. Finding that he was in an unauthorised
possession, the order of eviction has been made. I have not been
able to see any infirmity in the impugned order, which would call for
any interference, especially so when the petitioner is only making an
attempt to seek re-appreciation of facts and the documents. I am,
thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
January 28, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE