DIWAN SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment of mine will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3822, 3735, 4164, 3838, 3823, 3945 and 4234 of 1988 as they arise out of the common orders passed by the authorities below The facts of the case have been picked up from Civil Writ Petition No. 3822 of 1988.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 Gram Panchayat filed an eviction application under Section 7 (2) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Guhla on the ground that the petitioner in the writ petition is an unauthorised possession of the land in dispute and that the same is owned by the Panchayat. The case of the petitioner in the written statement is that he is proprietor of the village and is a co-sharer in the joint khewat and hence the application is not maintainable. It is further the case of the petitioner that the suit land with some other land was left by the proprietors at the time of consolidation for common purposes of the proprietory body and, therefore, the Panchayat has no right to file the eviction application. It has been found by the authorities below that the land in dispute is Charand and, therefore, shamlat deh. The authorities below imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,540/- per hectare per annum upon the petitioner.

(3.) MR. Arun Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehementely argued that the question of title was raised in the written statement and, therefore, until and unless the question of title was decided by the authorities below, they had no jurisdiction to order the eviction of the petitioner. On merits, it has been argued that the land in dispute is not in an unauthorised possession of the petitioner and that it is owned by the entire proprietory body of the village. It is further argued that the authorities below have committed an error in imposing a penalty of Rs 2,540/ per hectare per annum upon the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the land in dispute is described to be shamlat deh in the revenue record, that is, in the jamabandi etc etc. According to the counsel for the respondents, the question of title was not raised in the written statement and, therefore, the authorities under the Act have acted within jurisdiction in passing the order of eviction. On the point of penalty, it has been argued that the same has been done under the relevant provisions of the Act and, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court.