BANT KAUR Vs. DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF RURAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 29.8.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 15748 of 2010) filed by the appellant, challenging the orders dated 16.2.2009 and 28.5.2010 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) passed by the Collector-cum-Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala; and the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, SAS Nagar (exercising the powers of the Commissioner), respectively, was dismissed. Though there is a delay of 43 days in filing the appeal and the appellant has filed application (CM No. 68-LPA of 2012) for condoning the delay, yet we have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits, and gone through the revenue record annexed with the writ petition, the orders passed by the revenue authorities under the Act as well as the order, passed by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) In the present case, on a petition filed by the Gram Panchayat, Village Karhali, Block Sanaur, Tehsil and District Patiala, under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), vide order dated 16.2.2009 passed by the Collector, the appellant was ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute, measuring 11 kanals 4 marlas. In appeal, the said order was upheld by the Commissioner vide order dated 28.5.2010.

(3.) The appellant had opposed the eviction petition filed against her on the ground that the Gram Panchayat exchanged the disputed land measuring 11 kanals 4 marlas with her land measuring 5 kanals 15 marlas, comprised in Khasra No. 24//11 (3-0) and 20 (2-15). It was the further case of the appellant that the said oral exchange, which had taken place on the basis of a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, was duly reflected in the revenue record. It is pertinent to mention here mat during the pendency of the eviction proceedings under Section 7 of the Act before the authorities, the appellant filed a title suit under Section 11 of the Act before the Collector, which was subsequently dismissed in default.