LAWS(P&H)-2003-2-44

GURBACHAN DASS Vs. G.P DADHA

Decided On February 13, 2003
Gurbachan Dass Appellant
V/S
G.P Dadha Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari for setting aside and quashing of the order dated 30.7.2001 passed by the authorities in an application under Section 7 of Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") filed by the Gram Panchayat-respondent No. 1.

(2.) THE petitioner has claimed that he was allotted 5 marla plot being a landless person of the village in pursuance of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat on 24.8.1981. It has been stated that after the allotment of the plot, the petitioner has constructed a house and is residing therein. However, due to change in Panchayat members, the land is purported to have been given to Animal Husbandry Department for dispensary, without any notice to the persons already in possession.

(3.) ON the other hand, in reply, the Gram Panchayat-respondent No. 1 has stated that the petitioner is not landless person as he has a residential house in the abadi of village which is admitted by him in Civil Suit No. 288 of 1994. The Panchayat also denied that any exchange has ever taken place and that there is no resolution dated 24.6.1981 but it is a letter written to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. It is further submitted that the said communication, even if to be taken as resolution, is without any authority and without any prior permission of the government as contemplated by Rule 5 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (for short hereinafter to be referred as "the Rules"). It is also denied that there is any pucca residential house on the spot. Regarding the dismissal of eviction petition against Darshan Ram, it is pointed out that it pertained to different land than the land which was involved in the case of Darshan Ram. The petitioner was alleged to be in illegal/unauthorised possession and, thus, order of eviction was rightly passed against him.