GRAM PANCHAYAT BALBERA VILLAGE BALBERA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT PATIALA Vs. DIRECTOR VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Gram Panchayat Balbera, Tehsil and District Patiala, prays for issuance of a writ for quashing order dated 1.1.2010 passed by Director. Village Development and Panchayat, Punjab (exercising powers of Commissioner). Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Gram Panchayat filed a petition under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1961 Act"), but in the meanwhile, respondent No. 2 filed a petition under section 11 of the Act, claiming ownership of the land in dispute. The Collector-cum-Divisional Deputy Director Panchayat, Patiala, vide order dated 19.7.2006, dismissed the petition filed by respondent No. 2 by holding that the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land in dispute. Respondent No. 2, thereafter, filed an appeal, which was allowed by holding that as respondent No. 2 is in continuous possession, the land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2 entered the disputed land as a Chakotedar but after expiry of the lease period, did not return the land to the Gram Panchayat. Respondent No. 2, therefore, has no right to challenge the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. It is argued that as the land is, admittedly, Shamilat Deh and respondent No. 2 has not produced any evidence of his cultivating possession, whether in terms of section 2(g)(iii) or 2(g)(viii) of the Act, the impugned order should be set aside.

(2.) Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the land in dispute is "Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Zare Khewat", in possession of Makbuja Malkan, thereby establishing that respondent No. 2 was in possession prior to 26.1.1950. The appellate authority, therefore, rightly allowed the appeal and accepted the application filed under Section 11 of the Act by holding that the land is excluded from Shamilat Deh. It is also argued that the Gram Panchayat has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the land was leased out to respondent No. 2 or that respondent No. 2 entered the land as a lessee. The writ petition should, therefore, be dismissed and order passed by the appellate authority should be affirmed.

(3.) We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders.