GRAM PANCHAYAT BARI DISTT SONEPAT Vs. COLLECTOR SONEPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Punjab and Haryana High Court by the judgment under appeal dated 2-6-1983 dismissed a writ petition filed by the present appellant under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Collector of Sonepat dated 31-3-1983 holding that the respondent No. 2 was in authorised occupation of the land in question. The Collector reversed the finding of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sonepat dated 29-11-1982 holding that the present respondent No. 2 was in unauthorised occupation of the land in Shamilat deh belonging to the Gram Panchayat. The High Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition filed by the Panchayat by a one word order. Consequently, we are not in a position to understand the implications of the various questions of law and fact as emerged in the proceedings in the High Court and as no doubt appreciated by the High Court. We would have been in a better position to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties had we the advantage of a reasoned order of the High Court.

(2.) The question that arises in this case, as we understand from the submissions on either side, is whether or not the respondent, as contended by the appellant Panchayat is in unauthorised occupation of the land in Shamilat deh belonging to the Panchayat within the meaning of Rule 19(a) of the Punjab Village Common 1ands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, which reads:-

(3.) According to the Panchayat there is no evidence whatsoever to support the contention of the respondent that he was ever permitted by the Panchayat either as a lessee or as a licensee or in any other capacity to occupy the land in question. Counsel for the Panchayat, Mr. M. S. Gujral submits that the burden is upon the person claiming to be in authorised occupation of Panchayat land to prove by evidence that he has the necessary authority for his occupation of the land.