BALJIT SINGH Vs. JOINT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.10.2002, passed by the Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab, exercising the power of Commissioner under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide which the petitioner has been ordered to be ejected from the land measuring 38 kanals 11 marlas situated in village Bulpur.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he is in possession of the land in dispute since 1975 being proprietor of the village and is a share holder in the Mushtarka Malkan land. The land in question is Mushtarka Malkan land, which is neither owned by the Gram Panchayat Bulpur nor vests in it under the provisions of the Act. It is further the case of the petitioner that the Gram Panchayat, Village Bulpur has no locus standi to file the instant ejectment application under Sec. 7 of the Act, as some portion of the land in question i.e. khasra Nos. 3/22 (0 -14), 11//2 (7 -9), 12/2 (2 -8) and 13 (8 -0) was mutated in the name of Gram Panchayat, village Dogar Mahesh.

(3.) On the other hand, the case of the Gram Panchayat, Village Bulpur is that the land measuring 38 kanals 11 marlas is owned and vests in it, as the same had fallen to its share in the bifurcation of the Gram Panchayat, Dogar Mahesh by the order of the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, Chandigarh, vide letter dated November 17, 1998. The land in question was mutated in the name of Gram Panchayat, Village Bulpur. It has been further averred that the land in question was leased out to the petitioner in the year 1978 by Gram Panchayat, village Dogar Mahesh, when the Panchayat was joint, but after the expiry of the lease period, the petitioner did not hand over the vacant possession of the land in dispute. After bifurcation of the Panchayat in the year 1998, on 22.8.2000, Gram Panchayat, Village Bulpur filed an application for ejectment against the petitioner when he refused to hand over the vacant possession of the land in dispute to it. The said application, though, initially was dismissed by the Collector but was allowed by the Commissioner vide the impugned order.