GURMUKH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order dtd. 25/6/2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department (Exercising the Power of Commissioner), S AS Nagar Mohali, Punjab at Mohali and the order dtd. 17/10/2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Jalandhar.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that Gram Panchayat, Maheru filed a case before the District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Jalandhar against the petitioner and six others alleging that the petitioner has illegally encroached the Gram Panchayat land (26 Kanal), Khewat No.285, Khatauni No.359, Khasra No.19/716/4 (0-14), 17/3 (2-0), 22/2 (3-13), 23 (7-4), 24/1 (6-4), 22//3/1 (5-19), 4/1 (0-10) as per Jamabandi 2005-06, Hadbast No.55, situated in Village Maheru, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar. The land in dispute is common property under the control of Gram Panchayat, Maheru and the income from the said land was being used for the development and progress of the village. The petitioner got the land in dispute on lease in the name of his relatives and did not give back the same to the Gram Panchayat, Maheru. After hearing the Gram Panchayat and considering the revenue record, the Collector came to the conclusion that there is illegal encroachment on the land in question and as such he passed eviction order dtd. 17/10/2017 (Annexure P-3) directing the petitioner to immediately vacate the land in dispute and handover the vacant possession to the Gram Panchayat. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order the petitioner filed appeal before the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab at Mohali which was also dismissed vide order dtd. 25/6/2021 (Annexure P-5). Thus, the present petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the impugned orders are based upon conjectures and surmises and are perverse to the evidence available on record. Neither the land in dispute was used for common purpose nor its income was ever used for development of village and it was never leased to the petitioner or his relatives as alleged by the Gram Panchayat. Prior to 1964 and during consolidation, the land in dispute was shown as 'Shamlat Patti Udhowal' in the ownership column and later on vide mutation No.2250, the said entry was changed wrongly from 'Shamlat Patti Udhowal' to 'Panchayat Deh' on the basis of a letter dtd. 24/6/1964. As per law no mutation can be sanctioned on the basis of a letter or notification. The said entry is wrong, illegal and void which was changed without hearing anyone. The land in dispute which was earlier in the name of private persons had been transferred in the name of the petitioner and other performa respondents vide sale deed 18/5/1979 and the land in dispute does not come under the definition of 'Shamlat Deh'. Learned counsel also submits that the revenue authorities have not taken into consideration these facts. Therefore, the impugned orders being illegal may be quashed.