MANINDER KUMAR Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing orders dated 31.7.2003 (Annexure P-2) and 21.10.2005 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kalka and the Collector, Panchkula, respectively, dismissing his petition for eviction and the appeal. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as the "1961 Act"). The private respondents raised a plea that the land was sold or leased in perpetuity to them by the Gram Panchayat. The Assistant Collector dismissed the petition summarily without calling upon the private respondents to prove their title. The Collector has dismissed the appeal by committing the same error. Admittedly, the land, in dispute, is described as "Shamilat Deh" in the revenue record. The resolutions, passed by the Gram Panchayat on 17.6.1956 and 2.1.1959, were never acted upon or approved. The impugned orders, holding that the land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat merely because an earlier petition filed under Section 7 of the 1961 Act was dismissed, are illegal and void as they have been passed, without adopting the procedure prescribed for deciding a question of title.

(2.) Counsel for the private respondents submits that the land, in dispute, was allotted, by the Gram Panchayat, to non-proprietors for construction of houses, vide resolution dated 17.6.1956. The father of the private respondents deposited the amount demanded by the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat passed another resolution dated 2.1.1959, leasing out the land in perpetuity, to the private respondents. The authorities under the 1961 Act have, therefore, rightly held that land, in dispute, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, the petitioner has no right to file a petition under Section 7 of the 1961 Act, particularly as a similar petition was earlier dismissed.

(3.) We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and have no hesitation in allowing the writ petition and setting aside the impugned orders.