MOHD KHAN Vs. ISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition is challenging the order of the Collector as well as of the Commissioner whereby he has been ordered to he ejected under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (briefly 'the Act' ).

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that Isa son of Badlu, resident of village Nimka, filed an application under Section 7 of the Act against the petitioner on the ground that he is in unauthorised possession of land measuring 30 kanals 13 marlas, owned by Gram Panchayat and therefore, is liable to be ejected. This application was contested by the petitioner inter-alia on the ground that he is a tenant and cannot be ejected in proceedings under Section 7 of the Act. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide his order, Annexure P-l, dismissed the application on finding that the petitioner is a tenant and cannot be ejected under Section 7 of the Act. For this, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade also relied upon civil Court decree dated 28. 10. 1976 passed by the Sub Judge Palwal. Isa repreferred an appeal before the Collector, who allowed the same on the ground that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade should not have based his decision on the decree of the Civil Court, and therefore, remanded the case to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade for decision afresh. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner, who dismissed his revision petition on the ground that there is no provision for filing of a revision petition. The petitioner has now challenged the order of the Collector as well as of the Commissioner in the present writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade had no jurisdiction to proceed with the application under Section 7 of the Act as in Civil Suit No. 284 of 28. 4. 1975 as well as in Civil Suit No. 171 of 22. 7. 1976, the petitioner was held to be tenant and therefore, neither the petitioner could be ejected nor proceedings could be initiated against him. For this, the counsel has placed reliance upon a Full Beach judgment of this Court in Sarwan and Rati Ram v. The Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab and Ors. , (1985-2) 88 P. L. R. 184 (F. B. ). In reply, Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate, counsel for the respondents, argued that Civil Court decree dated 28. 10. 1976 (Annexure P- 4) was rightly not taken into consideration as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit against an order passed under Section 7 of the Act. He also submitted that at one time, the uncle of the petitioner was a Sarpanch of the Panchayat and he gave the land to the petitioner in a clandestine manner. He thus maintained that the land was never given on lease of the petitioner.