RAM PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing Nos. 15683 and 16287 of 1991 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The facts have, however, been extracted from Civil Writ Petition 16287 of 1991 (Ram Pal and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.).

(2.) CHALLENGE herein is to orders passed by the Additional Director, Punjab, dated June 7, 1991, Annexure P -3, vide which appeal preferred by the Gram Panchayat, Tejan, Block Bhunerheri, District Patiala, against orders of the Collector (District Development & Panchayat Officer), Patiala dated February 17, 1987, was allowed, thus declaring the possession of petitioners herein to be unlawful in a suit instituted by the Gram Panchayat under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

(3.) BEFORE we proceed any further in the matter, it shall be useful to extract the facts of the case even though briefly. Pritam Singh, father of Petitioners who died on 26.12.1988 had been in possession of the land in dispute and as per the case of the petitioners for the last 35 to 40 years. On his demise, Petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 inherited land and mutation to that effect was duly sanctioned in their favour. A major chunk of the land was sold by Petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 to Petitioners Nos. 4 and 5. The land was initially uncultivable and Pritam Singh by dint of his hard labour made it cultivable. He also installed a tubewell. He acquired ownership rights by adverse possession. He was in exclusive, peaceful, continuous and in interrupted possession without payment of any rent to anyone. In 1974, however, respondent - Gram Panchayat made a vain attempt for dispossessing Pritam Singh constraining him to institute a Civil Suit bearing No. 7 dated 25.1.1974 wherein he sought declaration to the effect that he had become owner by way of adverse possession of the land in dispute. This matter was contested, written statement was filed and the case was argued by both the sides. The Civil Court found substance in the averments made in the plaint resulting into judgment and decree in favour of Pritam Singh on 1.6.1974. During the Course of trial, Sarpanch Gurdev Singh and Panch Gullu Ram appeared as witnesses of Gram Panchayat and asserted that land in dispute was owned by Gram Panchayat and the same was Shamlat deh as defined in section 2 (g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. This decree of the Civil court was not challenged by way of appeal or revision and thus, attained finality. Respondent -Panchayat, however, in 1987 filed an application under section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act against Pritam Singh which was decided by the D.D. & P.O. on 17th of February, 1987 (Annexure P -2). The said Authority held that Pritam Singh had become owner in possession in view of the Civil Court decree, reference of which has been given above. Aggrieved, Gram Panchayat challenged the aforesaid order in appeal before the Additional Director Panchayat, Punjab, resulting in order of eviction of the petitioners. It is this order, as referred to in the earlier part of the judgment that has been challenged in this writ Petition.