BALDEV KRISHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing orders dated 17.09.2004 (Annexure P21), passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Punjab (exercising powers of Commissioner), 29.10.2001 (Annexure P20), passed by the Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Punjab (exercising powers of Collector), letter dated 08.01.2010 (Annexure P22), letter dated 11.10.2010 (Annexure P23), issued by the Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala (exercising powers of Collector) and notice/warrant of possession dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure P24). Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 5 -Gram Panchayat of village Allowal, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, filed an application, under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act') seeking ejectment of the petitioner, his father (Bhisham Chand) and his brother (Gopal Krishan alias Kala) which was disposed of by the Collector, vide order dated 29.10.2001 by directing them to pay the value of constructed area, measuring 89' x 2' x 40' x 3' to the Gram Panchayat, as per Collector rate. The order passed by the Collector in regard to deposit of the value of constructed area was set aside by the Appellate Authority i.e. Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Punjab, without providing an opportunity of being heard. It is argued that after a lapse of more than 5 years, respondent No. 4, issued a notice for delivery of possession to the petitioner, Bhisham Chand and Gopal Krishan. The petitioner came to know about order dated 17.09.2004 only when a notice has been issued in the year 2010, calling upon him to deliver possession of the site in dispute. It is further argued that the notice for delivery of possession has been issued only against the petitioner and his family members when otherwise, respondent Nos. 6 to 87 have also constructed their houses on shamilat deh, but the Gram Panchayat neither initiated any proceedings for their ejectment nor issued any notice to them to deliver possession of the site underneath their houses. It is further argued that shamilat deh land has been allotted to the private respondents as well as to the petitioner being poor and homeless persons for their rehabilitation in the village and the allottees were conferred the right to raise construction of their houses, the Gram Panchayat has no right, title or authority to seek ejectment of the petitioner.

(2.) COUNSEL for contesting respondent - Gram Panchayat submits that the Gram Panchayat preferred an appeal against order dated 29.10.2001 in so far as allowing the petitioner, his father and brother, to pay the value of constructed area to Gram Panchayat. The appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat was allowed. Bhisham Chand, Gopal Krishan and Baldev Krishan (petitioner herein) were ordered to be dispossessed from the land, in dispute. Bhisham Chand, father of the present petitioner, challenged order dated 17.09.2004, by filing a writ petition, which was dismissed on 10.03.2009. Bhisham Chand carried the matter in appeal, which was also dismissed by a Division bench on 08.10.2009. As Bhisham Chand, father of the petitioner, remained unsuccessful in getting any relief from this Court, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner in order to prolong the proceedings for delivery of possession and to retain possession of shamilat deh, land without any right, title or authority. He has strenuously argued that the present petition is nothing, but an abuse and misuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has not denied that the Gram Panchayat filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner, his father (Bhisham Chand) and his brother (Gopal Krishan). The Collector, after hearing the parties and consideration of the matter, allowed the claim of the Gram Panchayat in regard to vacant land, measuring 89' x 2' x 40' x 3' but permitted the respondents therein, including the present petitioner Baldev Krishan, to pay the price of constructed area, measuring 89' x 2' x 40' x 3'. A relevant extract from the order of the Collector, reads as follows: -