HARI SINGH Vs. JOINT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against the order dtd. 20/10/1994 (Annexure P-4), whereby the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD), Punjab (exercising the powers of the Commissioner), after allowing the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat Mardan Heri, bearing No. 162 of 1989, proceeded to set aside the verdict made on 27/3/1989 (Annexure P-3), by the Collector concerned, whereby the latter proceeded to declare the present petitioners as lawful owners in possession of the lands, as detailed thereins.

(2.) The learned senior counsel for the petitioners, has vigorously argued, before this Court, that when through Annexures P-1 and P-2, the Assistant Collector(s) concerned, after declining the relief to the State, on their respective petitions, thus seeking the eviction of the present petitioners from the disputed lands, rather declared the present petitioners to be the owners in possession thereofs. Consequently, the learned senior counsel submits, that since the above pronounced verdicts respectively embodied in Annexures P-1, and, P-2, acquire a binding, and, conclusive effect, given theirs remaining unchallenged. Therefore, he argues, that thereby the declaration of title vis-a-vis the present petitioners was also concomitantly binding, upon the author of Annexure P-4, thus on the ground that any contest reared by the Gram Panchayat concerned, against the assigning of the espoused declaratory relief to the plaintiffs (petitioners herein), rather became completely barred by an estoppel created by the binding, and, conclusive declaration, as made vis-a-vis the plaintiffs therein (the petitioners herein), thus through Annexure P-1, and, P-2.

(3.) Apparently, both the Annexures P-1, and, P-2, were made on the petitions cast, under Sec. 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961'), rather by the State of Punjab against the present petitioners. It is expressly clear from a reading of the above annexures, that both of them are most sketchily, and, cryptically drawn, thus without any issues being struck, despite a dispute becoming raised by the respondents therein (the petitioners herein), vis-a-vis, the entitlement of the State, to seek the eviction of the present petitioners, arrayed as respondents therein, from the disputed land. Contrarily, it appears, that merely on a cursory reading of the records, hence respectively through Annexures P-1, and, P-2, rather respectively the Assistant Collectors concerned, after declining the espoused eviction decree to the State, proceeded to in a most summary manner, make a declaration of title vis-a-vis the respondents therein (the petitioners herein). Now assuming, that even if the respondents therein had raised a dispute vis-a-vis the entitlement of the State, to receive a decree for eviction, on the respective petitions, but yet on such a dispute becoming raised by the respondents, it was but incumbent, upon the authorities concerned, to initially test whether such a dispute was raisable, and, also to discern from the documents appended with the responses filed to the eviction petitions, thus by the respondents therein, whether prima facie thereby they had a good title over the disputed lands. Moreover, thereafter if such a prima facie conclusion did become so formed, yet it was further imperative for the authorities concerned, to formulate issues for the relevant evidence adducing onus becoming cast upon the litigants concerned.