KHILLAN Vs. SOCIAL EDUCATION & PANCHAYAT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KHILLAN , the petitioner, has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 23.7.2002 (Annexure P-7), passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hodal, as well as the order dated 11.9.2002 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana confirming the said order, vide which the application of the Gram Panchayat for delivery of possession of the land in question, from which the petitioner was ordered to be ejected vide order dated 7.6.1990 by Assistant Collector Ist Class, Palwal (Annexure P-3), has been allowed. The petitioner has also challenged the initial order of ejectment dated 7.6.1990 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade in the present petition.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that in the year 1990, the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of the land in question by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Palwal, vide its order dated 7.6.1990 (Annexure P-3) on an application filed by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, under Section 7 of the Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and he was ordered to be ejected from the said land. Against that order, no appeal was filed by the petitioner and the same became final. Thereafter, in the year 1998, the Social Education and Panchayat Officer, Hodel, respondent No. 1 herein, filed application before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hodel for implementation of the order dated 7.6.1990 and for putting the Gram Panchayat in possession of the land in question, from which the petitioner was ordered to be ejected. The said application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the application filed by the respondent No. 1 is not maintainable being barred by limitation as the application for execution of the order dated 7.6.1990 could have been filed within a period of three years. The said contention of the petitioner was rejected by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 23.7.2002 (Annexure P-7) while holding that no limitation is prescribed for restoration of the possession to the Gram Panchayat in compliance of the order passed under Section 7 of the Act. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed revision before the Financial Commissioner, which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.9.2002 (Annexure P-9).

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, then, raised the second contention that the ejectment order dated 7.6.1990 cannot be executed after the expiry of three years and the petitioner cannot be dispossessed from the disputed land in execution of the aforesaid order. He contended that Article 137 of the Limitation Act is applicable in the present case and the limitation to execute such an order is three years. In our view, this contention of learned counsel is also liable to be rejected. For implementation of an order of ejectment passed under Section 7 of the Act, there is no limitation. It is the duty of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade to immediately put the Gram Panchayat in possession of the 'Shamilat Deh' found to be in illegal possession of an unauthorised occupant. This is clear from the wordings used by the Legislation under Section 7(1) of the Act, which is reproduced below :-