MAGHAR SINGH Vs. JOINT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to order dated 20.11.1995, Annexure P-4 passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer exercising the powers of the Collector, Sangrur as also order dated 9.2.2001, Annexure P-6, passed by the Joint Development Commissioner, exercising the powers of Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 20.11.1995, ordering eviction of the petitioner from the land, subject matter of dispute under Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 read with Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

(2.) THE admitted facts of the case reveal that Gram Panchayat, Bhari Mansa, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur, third respondent herein, vide deed dated 20.2.1987, Annexure P-1, exchanged land of the Gram Panchayat with that of petitioner and possession of the exchanged land was also handed-over to the respective parties in June, 1987. Despite the fact that there was indeed an exchange of land of the Gram Panchayat with that of the petitioner, evidenced vide Annexure P-1, respondent-Gram Panchayat sought eviction of the petitioner under the provisions of the two Acts, referred to above and succeeded in securing an order of eviction against the petitioner which has since been confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

(3.) IT is in the context of the pleadings made by the parties as also operative part of order, Annexure P-6, that we have mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment that exchange of Gram Panchayat land with that of the petitioner is an admitted fact. The only question, in view of the admission of exchange of land, that, thus, arises is as to whether the petitioner could be evicted in the proceedings initiated under Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 and Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The clear answer to the question, it appears to us, would be in negative. It is too well established and has not been even disputed that resort to the provisions of the two Acts aforesaid can be made only if the initial entry of an occupant of the land on the premises belonging to the Government or the Gram Panchayat, is unauthorised, "or the initial entry, which may be authorised, becomes unauthorised on account of violation of terms and conditions under which the land/property was occupied. Surely, if the petitioner entered into the land, subject matter of exchange, his initial entry can not be said to be unauthorised. Nothing at all was stated by the Gram Panchayat as to how, only on account of the fact that the exchange was not sanctioned by the Government, initial entry of the petitioner, which was authorised, would become unauthorised." It is under an exchange of land of petitioner, which, it is conceded during the course of arguments, is still occupied by the Gram Panchayat, that petitioner entered into the land, subject matter of dispute. The respondent-Gram Panchayat has not handed-over the possession of land, occupied by it on the dint of exchange deed dated 20.2.1987 and has yet claimed possession of the land, given to the petitioner by way of exchange in the eviction proceedings resorted to against him. Legality or competence of the proceedings under the provisions of the two Acts aforesaid apart, Gram Panchayat was wholly unjustified in seeking eviction of the petitioner without surrendering land of the petitioner.