CHUHAR SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON questions of law and facts are involved in civil writ petition Nos. 908 and 909 of 1987 and as such, are being disposed of by this judgment. Reference to the relevant facts has been made from civil writ petition No, 908 of 1987,

(2.) FACTS First:- Gram Panchayat, Nalini, respondent No. 3, filed a petition under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the petitioners on the ground that the disputed land is Shamilat deh and is owned by it and they are in illegal possession. of the same. The petitioner infer alia plead that they had purchased the land in lieu of which the disputed land was allotted in consolidation from Daya Ram and Inder Singh sons of Krishna along with their share in the' Shamilat deh on February 10, 1920; they were the khewat dars of the village and were in possession of the land prior to January 26, 1950. In support of their claim, they produced Sajra Nasab Malkan and jamabandis for the years 1947-48, 1951-52, 1955-56, 1959-60, 1969-70, 1. 979-80" and misal haqiat 1959-60. The Collector relying upon this material evidence came to the con-elusion that the petitioners were in possession of the disputed land prior to January 26, 1950. Resultantly, the petition, was dismissed vide order dated May 21, 1982. Panchayat did not assail the order. The Social Education and Panchayat Officer (for short 'the Panchayat Officer') preferred a time-barred appeal before respondent No. 2 against order of the Collector dated May 21, 1982. Obections to the maintainability-of the appeal at the instance of the Panchayat Officer and belated filing of the appeal were disposed of with the following observations: "the present appeal has also not been filed by any Panch or Sarpanch. The appeal has been filed by the S. E. P. O. Moreover, in this case, the appeal was filed on 8. 4. 1983 and the respondent appeared in the court on 16. 12. 1983. The point of limitation should have been raised at that time but he has raised this point on 19. 9. 1986 after the expiry of about two years nine months. At this stage, it is not in the interest of justice to dismiss this appeal on this ground. The Gram Panchayats are Public institutions and their property is the property of the public. In the circumstances of the present case, have no hesitation to condone the delay which has taken place in the present case. Delay is condoned". A bare reading of these observations indicates that respondent No. 2 did not appreciate the scops and ambit of objections raised before him.

(3.) APPEAL is not a common law right. It is a creature of a statute. The Act is a complete Code providing for summary remedy against the persons who are in illegal possession of Shamilat deh land. It also provides for the authorities who can initiate the proceedings under the Act.