VED PARKASH Vs. COMMISSIONER, AMBALA DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders dated 25.9.1985, 14.1.1986 and 8.4.1986, Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-5, passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jagadhri, the Collector, Ambala and the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, respectively, vide which the petitioner has been ordered to be ejected from the land in dispute on the application filed by respondent No. 4 under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 21.1.1985, respondent No. 4-Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Act for ejectment of the petitioner from the land in question by alleging that it had leased out the land in question to the petitioner on 22.5.1983 for a period of one year. The said lease period expired on 22.5.1984, but after the expiry of the lease period, the petitioner did not hand over the vacant possession of the land in question. It was alleged that after the expiry of the lease period, the petitioner was in unauthorised possession of the land in question which vests in the Gram Panchayat, therefore, he is liable to be ejected. In response to the notice issued the petitioner filed reply to the said application and admitted that the land in question was leased out to him by the Gram Panchayat on 22.5.1983 on yearly basis. But he alleged that no time limit was fixed. It was also pleaded that the petitioner being a tenant on the land in question could be ejected only under the procedure provided in the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.

(3.) IN the instant writ petition, while challenging the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has submitted that the respondent-Gram Panchayat is not the owner of the land in question. According to him, the land in dispute is owned by Zumla Malkans and no mutation regarding this land was sanctioned in the name of the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, a question of title was existing before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, therefore, as soon as the question of title was raised before him, it was incumbent upon the Assistant Collector Ist Grade to decide the same and then to proceed with the case. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid impugned orders, passed by respondents No. 1 to 3, are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.