BALBIR KAUR ALIAS GODHAN AND OTHERS Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT JHORARH ROHI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SIRSA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of five appeals, i.e. Letters Patent Appeals No. 2318 to 2322 of 2011, as the same are arising out of the common order dated 28.9.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby five separate writ petitions (CWPs No. 16091 of 1990, 411, 412, 492 and 493 of 1991), filed by the appellants/predecessors of the appellants against the separate orders dated 25.7.1989 and 30.1.1990 (Annexures P-1 and P-2), passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sirsa and the Collector, Sirsa, respectively, as well as the common order dated 12.10.1990, passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, have been dismissed.

(2.) Gujjar Singh challenged the aforesaid orders by filing CWP No. 16091 of 1990. Before the learned Single Judge, counsel for the appellants argued that predecessor of the appellants, namely Gujjar Singh, was in possession of the entire land as co-sharer, much prior to 26th January, 1950, therefore, the authorities under the Act have committed grave illegality while ordering eviction of the predecessor of the appellants from the land in dispute. It was also argued that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade has committed grave procedural illegality while not converting the proceedings under Section 7 of the Act in title suit, as a question of title was raised before him, which should have been adjudicated by converting the ejectment proceedings in the title suit.

(3.) The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the predecessor of the appellants, dismissed the writ petition and upheld the orders, passed by the authorities under the Act. It has been found that the predecessor of the appellants has proved his individual cultivating possession prior to 26th January, 1950 with regard to the land measuring 11 Bighas 13 Biswas, equivalent to 58 Kanals 5 Marlas. The said land has been exempted from vesting in the Gram Panchayat. On the remaining land i.e. 209 Kanals 2 Marlas of land, the predecessor of the appellants had failed to prove his possession for more than twelve years prior to commencement of the Act, therefore, he was ordered to be evicted from the same, as that land was not liable to be exempted under Section 4 (3) (ii) of the Act. Regarding the contention that since a question of title was involved in the proceedings, therefore, the Collector should have converted the proceedings in the title suit, it has been observed that it is not mandatory for the Assistant Collector Ist Grade to convert every proceeding under Section 7 of the Act into the title suit, only on being raised a question of title. If from the material placed before the Assistant Collector, he finds that a question of title is involved, only then he is required to convert the eviction proceedings into the title suit. It has been observed that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, while considering the documents available on record, came to the conclusion that claim of the predecessor of the appellants with regard to the remaining land was not supported by any documentary evidence, therefore, qua that land, there was no need to convert the eviction proceedings into the title suit.