GRAM PANCHAYAT, ROORKI Vs. JT. DEVELOPMENT COMMR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") before the Collector seeking eviction of Respondents 3 and 4 from the land in question. In reply to the notice issued in those proceedings, the contesting respondents took the contention that the land in dispute is a "samadh", there are three rooms for the purpose of worship and the Collector had no jurisdiction to evict them from the remaining land attached to that "samadh". After conclusion of the evidence, the second respondent made an application under Section 11 of the Act claiming title to the land in question. The Collector, after holding the enquiry and in the light of the evidence that was placed on record before him, concluded that from the area of two biswas, where there is actual construction (dera), the respondents could not be evicted. As far as the remaining land is concerned, the claim of the appellant was upheld as against the claim of the respondents. The appellant did not challenge that part of the order passed by the Collector wherein relief was given to the respondents to the extent of two biswas, where the dera is situated. However, the second respondent filed an appeal questioning the validity and correctness of the order "passed by the Collector rejecting the claim in respect of the remaining land before the Joint Development Commissioner. The Joint Development Commissioner, noticing the argument advanced on behalf of the second respondent and without referring to the submissions or contentions of the present appellant, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Collector. In this situation, the appellant approached the High Court by filing a writ petition assailing the order passed by the Joint Development Commissioner in the appeal. The High Court, by the impugned order, reproducing the material portion of the order passed by the Joint Development Commissioner and adding one more paragraph referring to certain statements said to have been made by the devotees, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant strongly contended that the High Court committed a manifest error in not examining the serious contentions, both on facts and in law, which certainly arose for consideration in the light of the rival contentions; the High Court simply reproduced the material portion of the order passed by the Joint Development Commissioner and added one more paragraph at the end on some assumption in regard to certain statements said to have been made by some devotees without there being any basis. According to the learned counsel, the order passed by the High Court in writ jurisdiction is not a reasoned order dealing with the contentions on merits. The learned counsel added that Respondents 2 and 3 did not satisfy and establish their claim over the land in question; none of the documents placed on record show the ownership of Respondents 2 and 3; in some documents, though names are shown in the column of "Cultivator" but those entries are also not consistent with the stand taken by Respondents 2 and 3. His further submission is that the entries made in the revenue records stood unchallenged for a long period of time; in other words, the respondents did not question their correctness if they were serious and certain about their rights over the property. The learned counsel also found fault with the order passed by the Joint Development Commissioner who set aside the order of the Collector without discussing the evidence placed on record and even without dislodging the reasons recorded in the order of the Collector.

(3.) In opposition, the learned counsel for Respondents 2 and 3 contended that the Joint Development Commissioner was right in holding in favour of the respondents having regard to the definition of "shamilat deh" in Section 2(g) of the Act and their case is covered by Exception (ix) thereto, as indicated in the order of the Joint Development Commissioner. The learned counsel further submitted that in the absence of the Gram Panchayat establishing that the land vested in it as the common land i.e. "shamilat deh", it has no locus standi even to initiate proceedings against them. She also submitted that the records produced also support the case of the respondents. In short and substance, the submissions of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents are in support of the order made by the Joint Development Commissioner, as affirmed by the High Court in the impugned order.