BALAK RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the writ petition of the appellant in limine taking the view that it was highly belated because the appellate order of the Additional Director, Panchayats, Punjab, which the appellant had impugned, was of 13/6/1989 and he had approached the High Court on 18/4/1991. Evidently there was no such delay which could have been viewed as "high" by the High Court especially when a bundle of documents had to be collected by the appellant to prove his case, importance of which can be gathered from what we observe on the merit of the matter.

(3.) The appellant and before him his father, was a village artisan, a blacksmith. The village proprietary body had put his father in possession of a small piece of land out of the joint land termed as shamlet, belonging to the proprietary body. Revenue entries for the year 1944-45 clearly reveal that his father Munshi, son of Gulab Lohar was in possession of the land without payment of any rent to the proprietors for services rendered. On the demise of Munshi, his son the appellant stepped into his shoes. Since the appellant was in possession for more than 12 years before 22/4/1961 when the Punjab village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 came into force and that too without payment of rent or any other charges exceeding the land revenue, his possession was statutorily protected. Still the Panchayat clamoured for possession of the land from him but it failed in their effort when moving an application under Section 7 (1) of the said Act before the Collector, roopnagar. Rejecting the claim of the Panchayat the Collector held that the appellant could remain in possession of the land as long as it was put to cultivation. The land comprised is in three survey numbers. The Panchayat seemingly was satisfied insofar as two survey numbers were concerned. It was aggrieved qua decision relating to Khasra No. 79 (0 kanals - 16 marlas). It maintained that it ceased to be in cultivating possession of the appellant because it was described as "gair mumkin bara". The Appellate Officer, on appeal by the Panchayat held that the appellant could not retain possession over Khasra No. 79 as it had ceased to be cultivated and therefore ordered eviction, to which order the High Court has refused to interfere.