GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 25.05.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, exercising the powers of Commissioner, Patiala thereby accepting the appeal of respondents No. 2 and 3, setting aside the ejectment order, the Gram Panchayat has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-Gram Panchayat filed an eviction petition under Sections No. 4 and 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery), Act 1973 (for short PP Act) against respondents No. 1 and 2 which was dismissed vide order dated 22.11.1996 and its appeal was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 06.05.1998. Petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 818 of 1999 challenging the above said two orders. Vide order date 16.05.2000 (Annexure P-2) a Division Bench of this Court set aside the above said orders and remanded the case back to the Collector for fresh decision. In compliance of the above said order passed by this Court, parties appeared before the Collector who again dismissed the ejectment petition vide order dated 24.07.2001. Petitioner filed appeal No. 229 of 2001 before the Commissioner who accepted the same and remanded the case for fresh decision vide order dated 20.08.2004. This order was challenged by the respondents No. and 3 before this Court by way of CWP No. 1394 of 2005 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15.05.2006 directing the parties to appear before the Collector, Patiala. After hearing both the parties, Collector decided to carry out the spot inspection of the land in dispute, before deciding the case. The land was inspected on 12.08.2009 and thereafter, the Collector came to the conclusion that the petitioner was owner of the land in dispute. Respondents No. 2 and 3 were found in un-authorized possession and their eviction was ordered vide order dated 13.08.2009 (Annexure P-3). Respondents went in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala exercising the powers of Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, who accepted the appeal of the respondents and set aside the eviction order by way of impugned order dated 25.05.2010 (Annexure P4). Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 113/295, Khasra No. 439/312(3-12), 432(0-8), plot No. 2 measuring 4 Kanal 1 Marla and Khewat/Khatauni No. 113/294, Khasra No. 440(2-6) and 441(1-5), plot No. 2 measuring 4 Kanal 1 Marla, total measuring 8 Kanal 1 Marla, as recorded in the opening para of the order dated 16.05.2000 (Annexure P-2) passed by Division Bench of this Court, disposing of CWP No. 818 of 1999 (Gram Panchayat Village Rohar Jagir v. The Joint Development Commissioner and others), was the ownership of petitioner Gram Panchayat. He further submits that alleged resolution dated 11.05.1957 which was not an authenticated document, was made the basis of alleged exchange between the petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3. He next contended that the alleged resolution dated 11.05.1957 was, as a matter of fact, a fabricated document. The exchange never took place and the same was totally baseless. In the alternative, he submits that even if the resolution is deemed to be in existence but only for the sake of argument and not admitted otherwise, still the so called exchange would be of no consequence because admittedly no prior permission of the State Government was ever sought under Rule 12 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called as 1964 Rules) and the mandatory law was flagrantly violated. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Kesar Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 3 RCR(Civ) 825. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the present writ petition.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner was factually correct and legally justified. It was not suffering from any illegality. The petitioner-Gram Panchayat exchanged the land with the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, vide resolution dated 11.05.1957 (Annexure R2/1). The petitioner-Gram Panchayat was not competent to file the eviction petition after a gap of 38 years because of principle of estoppel. He also relies upon the statement of Ranjit Singh (Annexure R2/2) and submits that since respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were coming into cultivating possession over the land since 1957, it was too late in the day to order their eviction at the instance of the petitioner-Gram Panchayat. He also submits that after exchange, petitioner-Gram Panchayat handed over the land of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, to the State Government who constructed the school thereon. He concluded by submitting that the writ petition was misconceived and was liable to be dismissed.