LAWS(P&H)-2014-2-664

RAMDHARI Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT NAIN AND OTHERS

Decided On February 25, 2014
RAMDHARI Appellant
V/S
Gram Panchayat Nain And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Assistant Collector on 06.10.2010, whereby an order of evicting the petitioner from a land measuring 171/2 ft. x 181/2 ft. was passed in proceedings under Sec. 7 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). Such order has been affirmed in appeal by the Collector on 20.09.2011 and later by the Commissioner on 15.11.2013 in revision.

(2.) Initially, the petitioner filed a civil suit for injunction on 23.08.2003 claiming that the site in dispute is in his possession since the time of his forefathers and that the defendants, which do not include the Gram Panchayat, be restrained to interfered with his possession. The said suit was decreed on 23.10.2009, whereby the defendants were restrained from demolishing boundary wall marked BC in the site plan Ex.PW4/A, though, the petitioner has raised a plea that he is in possession for the last 50 years by raising of wall, so as to identify the property in possession of the petitioner.

(3.) In the meantime, the Panchayat had filed petition under Sec. 7 of the Act on 03.12.2007. In such proceedings, Chander Bhan, Sarpanch and Karan Singh Nambardar of the village appeared as PW-1 & PW-2 respectively. Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Madlauda has inspected the site in dispute pursuant to the order passed by the Assistant Collector and submitted its report on 21.09.2010. To rebut such evidence, the present petitioner appeared as his own witness only. No other evidence was led by him. The report of BDPO is to the effect that Khasra No. 109 is a part of abadi deh and that land is lying vacant on the spot on both sides of the street, which leads towards village Pardhana. In the eastern side of the street, there is room of the petitioner and Raj Kumar son of the petitioner measuring 171/2 ft. x 181/2 ft. It was also reported that Panchayat has constructed culvert, which is blocked. Thus, it was found that it is the petitioner, who has blocked the passage.