HAWA SINGH Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR IST GRADE, ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 6.2.1980, Annexure P-1, passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rohtak.

(2.) Briefly put, Lehri s/o Sheo Lal, respondent No. 2, filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") against the petitioner seeking his eviction from the area on which he has encroached upon by raising construction thereupon thereby narrowing chowk Shamlat and in this way causing inconvenience to the villagers. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade allowed due opportunities to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective contentions and further with a view to verify the nature of controversy raised examined the spot personally. Assistant Collector Ist Grade on the basis of evidence on record as well as per his own spot inspection, came to the conclusion that Hawa Singh (now petitioner) has encroached upon an area measuring 36 + 25 feet by raising 2 and 2-1/2 feet bricked khoar etc. and thus ordered for eviction of the respondent from the land measuring 36 + 25 feet vide order dated 23.10.1978. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order which too was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 22.1.1979. It is thereafter that the petitioner filed an application under Section 13-B of the Act before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade claiming therein that a plot measuring 70 + 34 feet forms part of his house and this way the order passed under Section 7 of the Act was illegal and not binding upon him. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade on the basis of evidence lead found no merit in the case of the petitioner and accordingly dismissed the suit vide order dated 6.2.1980, Annexure P-1, which is now under challenge.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged this order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade dated 6.2.1980 on the ground that it was incumbent upon the Assistant Collector Ist Grade to decide the question of vesting of land in dispute. Since there was no reliable documentary evidence to show that the land in dispute vests or does not vest in the gram panchayat thus the petitioner can protect his possession against everybody except a true owner. In addition to this, the finding recorded by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade in respect of the remaining issues was also challenged.