SHINGARA SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2148 to 2150 of 1980 and 5562 to 5564 of 1982 as common question of law has been raised in these set of petitions. Facts have been taken from CWP No. 2148 of 1980 and reference has also been made to the averments in CWP No. 5564 of 1982 as some additional documents were placed on record by the petitioner in support of his contention raised in the said petition.

(2.) The petitioner challenged the order of Collector dated May 27, 1980, Annexure P-1, whereby the appeal filed by him against the order of Assistant Collector Ist Grade passed under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") was dismissed thereby affirming the order of eviction from the land in dispute and the imposition of penalty at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per hectare for a period of three years in all amounting to Rs. 12,710/-.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that some 22 years ago he was settled in Patti Kisna Mauza Thana, tehsil Guhla, with the consent of the owners of the Patti who had granted him (as well as other petitioners in the connected writ petition. The right of exclusive possession in respect of land measuring 56 Kanals 11 Marlas. Accordingly, the petitioner occupied the land and took suitable measures to develop this barren and unculturable land for agricultural purposes. This grant was for indefinite period. It has further been alleged that during all these 22 years the petitioner/petitioners have been carrying on extensive levelling operations, developments and clearance of jungles. They have built residential arcade for themselves. Not only this, they have installed tubewell and their houses are provided with electric fitting. In fact, according to the petitioner, various structures were set up by him and his like form residential colony. It is the case of the petitioner that the land owned by Patti Kisana had remained in cultivating possession earlier with the proprietors and now with the petitioner and that at no time the same was put for any common purpose or benefit of the village community. This has been so recorded in revenue papers. With a view to resist the claim of the gram panchayat in petition filed by it under Section 7(2) of the Act, the petitioner challenged the right of the gram panchayat to initiate the proceedings. It was also alleged that the disputed land does not vest in the gram panchayat and is, in fact, owned by Patti Kisana. The Assistant Collector after carefully examining the evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions came to the conclusion that the land is owned by gram panchayat which fact is also established as per copy of jamabandi Exhibit A-1. The Assistant Collector also held that as per Section 2(g)(3) of the Act, even land of Shamilat patti and tholas vests in the gram panchayat. As regards the plea of the petitioner that he was in occupation of the land as a lessee was found without substance as no proof was adduced by the petitioner with regard to payment of any lease money to the owners of Shamilat Patti. On the other hand, entries in revenue record clearly mentioned his possession without payment of rent unlawful possession (zabardasti). Accordingly, the Assistant Collector passed an order of eviction and imposed a penalty at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per hectare for a period of three years i.e. for an amount of Rs. 12,710/- vide order dated 10.6.1979. The appellate authority too examined the matter in all it entirety but found no substance in the appeal and subsequently dismissed the appeal thus upholding the order of the Assistant Collector vide order dated 27.5.1980. The present challenge to these two orders annexures. P-1 and P-2 is on the following grounds : (i) The land has been described as shamilat patti kisana as per jamabandi for the year 1971-72 and so the same does not come within the ambit of definition of shamilat deh as the same is not being put for the benefit of the village community nor any part of it is being used for common purposes of the village. (ii) that the Collector and Assistant Collector could not order for eviction of land under kothas, tubewell and passage leading to kothas and tubewell in view of Section 2 (5)(vi) of the Act; (iii) Imposition of penalty is illegal. The order is vague as it is not clear how three years period is to be calculated; (iv) That the Collector as well as Assistant Collector could not order ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of applicability of Rule 19(b) of the Village Common Lands (Regulations) Rules, 1964 (for short "the Rules"). Even otherwise, the petitioner had not hold the land under the tenancy of panchayat either before or after 1976, the date of record of ownership of the panchayat per mutation dated August 27, 1970, and so Rule 19(b) does not cover the point in controversy; (iv) The Collector erred in law in permitting the respondent Gram Panchayat to produce some evidence to prove some payment of rent in the year 1965-66. Collector's order permitting gram panchayat to adduce these documents is against the rules of natural justice as the petitioner had no right of rebutting. The petitioner challenged the finding of the courts with regard to the factum of rent paid in the year 1965. In the alternative, the petitioner claimed compensation for clearance, development and establishment of tubewell etc.