LAWS(P&H)-2011-4-246

NATHU RAM Vs. JOINT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

Decided On April 28, 2011
NATHU RAM Appellant
V/S
Joint Development Commissioner And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by a law breaker, who is forcibly enjoying more than 94 kanal of land, owned by the Gram Panchayat, for the last more than four decades, without payment of any rent either to the Gram Panchayat or to any member of the Jumla Mushtarka Malkaans. Before us, it has frankly been admitted by counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant is not a Khewatdar in the village and at the time of consolidation proceedings, he has not contributed even a single inch of land, when the land was separated/earmarked to use it for the common purposes of the village.

(2.) FACTS reveal that the Gram Panchayat has filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), seeking ejectment of the Appellant from the land in dispute. The Appellant also filed an application under Section 11 of the Act, alleging that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute and be declared as such. Both the applications were taken up together. Application filed by the Appellant was allowed by the competent authority, whereas that of the Gram Panchayat was dismissed. The Gram Panchayat went in appeal. The Commissioner, in his order dated 2.12.2004, after noting evidence in detail, especially, by making reference to the revenue record in the shape of Jamabandis, which were brought on record by the parties, has observed as under:

(3.) THEN the Appellant came to this Court by filing CWP No. 11917 of 2007, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.11.2010, on three counts (i) that the land was shown in the revenue record as Shamlat Deh Hasab Hisaj Mundarja Sajra Nasab and in possession of the Gram Panchayat/Makbooja Malkaan, as such, it belongs to the Gram Panchayat, (ii) that the Appellant has failed to connect the land in his possession with the land owned by the Gram Panchayat before the year 1950 and (iii) that after taking the land on lease, the Appellant has failed to vacate the same.