JUDGMENT
V.K. Bali, J.
1. No occasion at all arises to interfere with the impugned order whereby eviction of the petitioners has been ordered in the proceedings initiated under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), culminating into the order passed by learned Commission dated 19.6.2003, Annexure P4. It is significant to mention that before the revisional Court, there was not even an argument raised that eviction order passed against the petitioners was either illegal or improper. All that, has been urged before learned Commissioner is that the petitioners in view of the Government policy should be allowed to purchase the constructed portion. This contention has since been gone into thoroughly by learned Commissioner and the same, in our view, has rightly been rejected because the land in dispute is Charand. In other words, same is meant for common purpose of the villagers. Such a land even as per the Government policy, cannot be permitted to be purchased. Further the rights of the petitioners to purchase the land cannot be gone into in the eviction proceedings under Section 7 of the Act.
2. At this stage, learned counsel representing the petitioners, argues that Gram Panchayat had earlier passed a resolution favouring the purchase of the constructed portion by the petitioners and whereas, such a resolution has been passed, the concerned authorities would have no option but for to allot the land. For this aforesaid contention, learned counsel relies upon three judgments of this Court in Smt. Malkhani v. The Commissioner Rohtak Division, Rohtak, (2001-2)128 P.L.R, 450, Hari Singh v. Piare Lal, (1999-3)123 P.L.R. 166 and Kamrudin v. State of Haryana, 2002(1) P.L.J. 9.
3. After hearing learned counsel representing the petitioners on the aforesaid issue and having gone through the judgments, referred to above, we are of the firm view that the contention raised by the counsel, in the facts and circumstances of this case, has no merit whatsoever. Fact of Smt. Malkhani’s case (supra) would reveal that the same was a case of plot. It was not even a case of any body that the same was being used for any common purposes. In other words, the Gram Panchayat would not be entitled to contest the matter, having passed resolution favouring purchase of constructed portion. In so far as judgment in Hari Singh’s case (supra) is concerned, there is specific finding recorded that the land was never used for common purposes, though the same was a Shamlat Deh and in so far as judgment of this Court in Karmudin’s case (supra) is concerned, it was found therein that the land had not been reserved. The judgments relied upon are absolutely distinguishable on facts.
Before we may part with this order, we would like to mention that the fact that land is being used as Charand and reserved for the said purpose, as such has not been challenged.
No merits. Dismissed.
