JAI RAM Vs. COLLECTOR YAMUNNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GURDIAL Singh respondent No. 4, a resident of village Manda Khera moved an application under Section 7 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regualtion) Act, 1961 for ejectment of Jai Ram and Maya Ram petitioners from Khasra No. 145, situated in the revenue estate of village Munda Khera, which according to him was a public thoroughfare and had been illegally encroached upon by the petitioners. The application was decided by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Yamuna Nagar vide order dated 4.2.1993, Annexure P-1. The petitioners were ejected from the land in question and were directed to hand over the possession to the Gram Panchayat. A penalty of Rs. 4,000/- per acre, per year for the five years was also imposed on the petitioners for causing loss to the Gram Panchayat by illegal encroachment of the land. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the order of Assistant Collector 1st Grade which was dismissed by the Collector, Yamuna Nagar on 6.7.1993, copy of the order being Annexure P/3. By way of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the orders Annexures P-1 and P-2 on the ground that the impugned orders were passed without affording them any opportunity of putting up their case by filing a written statement and substantiating their plea that they were the owners of the land in question and were in possession thereof since the time of their fore-fathers, by leading evidence. It was averred that the application was moved on 10.12.1992 and it was yet fixed for summoning the petitioners when an order for their ejectment was passed on the basis of some local inspection conducted by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Yamuna Nagar. The appeal was also dismissed on the ground that the application was to be decided by adopting summary procedure and it was rightly disposed of on the basis of some demarcation made in the presence of Jai Singh Sarpanch who was brother of the petitioners.

(2.) SEPARATE written statements were filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 wherein it was maintained that the land in question was a common path which vested in the Gram Panchayat and the petitioners were in illegal occupation of the same. It was maintained that the demarcation of the land was done at the spot by one Rameshwar Dass, a retired Kanungo on the basis of which ejectment of the petitioners was ordered.

(3.) THE solitary question to be decided in this petition is whether the eviction of the petitioners could be ordered from the land in question only on the basis of a local inspection and demarcation conducted by some retired Kanungo in the absence of the petitioners without affording them an opportunity to lead evidence. There is no denial of the fact that in the application for ejectment summons were issued only to one of the petitioners namely Maya Ram and no notice of the application was given to Jai Ram petitioner. The order Annexure P-1 was passed against him in his absence. Even Maya Ram was not given any opportunity to state his case by filing written statement. No opportunity was given to any of the petitioners to lead evidence and the application was decided simply on the basis of inspection conducted by the Assistant Collector and one demarcation report prepared by a retired Kanungo in the absence of the petitioners. Opportunity of being heard is an elementary requirement of principle of natural justice and the Assistant Collector committed a serious lapse by not giving notice of the application to petitioner No. 1 and affording opportunity to the petitioner of being heard before passing the impugned order. While preferring an appeal against the order Annexure P-1 the petitioners took all these objections in the grounds of appeal Annexure P-2 but these were not dealt with by the Collector while disposing of the appeal. The impugned orders are, therefore, not justifiable and are liable to be quashed.