BHARTU Vs. COMMISSIONER, ROHTAK DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have approached this court to challenge the orders of their eviction from the land measuring 80 Kanals 16 Marlas. The concurrent findings recorded by the authorities under the Statute are that the land belongs to the respondent Gram Panchayat. The petitioners "have been shown in cultivating possession of the land for the first time in Kharif 1987 under the orders of the Naib Tehsildar........There is no other document that could prove on record that they are co-sharers on the land in dispute..........The mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat has never been challenged." Thus the petitioners were ordered to be evicted. The petitioners pray that the orders, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P-1 to P-3, be quashed. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) THE petitioners allege that on June 1, 1995, the Assistant Collector had illegally sanctioned the mutation of the land measuring 8574 Bighas 15 Biswas including the land in dispute in favour of the respondent Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, in the year 1989 the Gram Panchayat had filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 for the ejectment of the petitioners from the land in their possession. This petition was allowed by the Assistant Collector vide order dated March 31, 1992, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-3, with the writ petition. The petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated September 8, 1998. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. The petitioners filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the Commissioner on April 9, 1999. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P.1 with the writ petition. The petitioners allege that the land does not vest in the panchayat. It belongs to the village proprietary body. There is decree of the Civil Court in their favour. Thus the panchayat has no right to seek their eviction and that the authorities have erred in passing the impugned orders. On these premises, the petitioners pray that the orders copies of which have been produced as Annexures P.1 to P.3 with the writ petition be quashed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the parties have been heard.