RAJBIR Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR IST GRADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJBIR Singh and others have filed this writ petition for quashing order dated July 16, 1991 (Annexure P. 10) passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Narwana. Proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act as applicable to Haryana were, initiated against the petitioners by the Gram Panchayat in respect of plots situated in the village abadi (premises in question ). During the pendency of the proceedings, an application was filed by the petitioners raising prima facie question of title and calling upon the Assistant Collector to first decide the said question. This application was filed under Section 7 (1) read with proviso. Alongwith this application, the petitioners submitted affidavits of some of the villagers. The Assistant Collector without making reference to these affidavits held that no prima facie evidence of title was produced by the petitioners and passed the impugned order. Notice of motion was issued and written statement has been filed on behalf of the Gram Panchayat inter alia taking objections with respect to the maintainability of the petition as alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners and on merits, the Assistant Collector rightly rejected the application.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we are of the view that appeal was maintainable against the impugned order. Shri P. N. Aggarwal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners referred to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sarwan Singh v. Gram Panchayat Balad Kalan, 1984 P. L. J. 42 holding that appeal was not maintainable under the provision of the Act and only remedy available was writ jurisdiction. On going through the facts of the case, we find that impugned order was of stay during the pendency of the proceedings, obviously, by passing the stay order, no final decision regarding the controversy was made. As for as, the present application is concerned, the controversy on the question of title raised was decided finally by the Assistant Collector. It may be emphasised that affidavits of the persons produced, would be evidence to be taken into consideration. What value to be attached to such affidavits on the points involved in the case is entirely for the Authorities to determine. Since, in the present case, application filed under Section 7 (1) proviso, has been rejected holding that there was no prima facie evidence, such order would be final qua determination of the question of title as contemplated under Section 7 (1) which reads as under :

(3.) THE aforesaid provision would cover the case in hand and appeal would be maintainable under Section 7 (4) of the Act It is left to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Court and raise other questions involved in the case. We refrain from commenting on merits of the case May be for bona fide reasons, the petitioners have approached this Court instead of approaching Appellate Court The question of limitation would not be raised as a bar for entertainment of the appeal if the same is filed within one month from today The petitioners may approach the Appellate Court for obtaining any interim order regarding stay of proceedings before the Assistant Collector, the Assistant Collector will not finally determine the question of ejectment of the petitioner for one month With the directions aforesaid, this writ petition stands disposed of No order as to costs.