MOHINDER SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside order dtd. 28/9/1989 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Ferozepur; whereby, he was ordered to be ejected under the provisions of Punjab Public Premises and Lands (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (in short 'the 1973 Act') from land measuring 18 kanals - 9 marlas, comprised in Khasra No.40/2(7-7), 25(6-6), 67/5/1(4-6) situated in Village Balluana, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur.

(2.) Briefly, in May-1989, respondent No.1-Gram Panchayat, Balluana through its Sarpanch, filed an eviction petition under Ss. 4, 5 and 7 of the 1973 Act, seeking eviction of the petitioner from the afore-said land. The petitioner appeared in the afore-said eviction proceedings and made a statement on 22/9/1989, stating that he has no connection with the afore-said land and that the Panchayat can auction the same.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had migrated to India on account of partition of the country, somewhere in the year 1947 and he entered into possession of the afore-said land situated at Village Balluana. It is submitted that the petitioner was in an un-disturbed possession of the said land for a period of more than 40 years and his name stands recorded in the revenue records as well. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Jamabandi for the year 1965-66 upto the Jamabandi for the year 1985-86, according to which, in the ownership column, the land in question is recorded as the ownership of Gram Panchayat and in the cultivation column, the name of the petitioner is mentioned. It is submitted that when the petitioner had appeared before the learned Collector, Ferozepur on 22/9/1989, then his signatures were secured upon the representation that since he had prayed for an adjournment, therefore, he should sign the same. It is submitted that the signatures of the petitioner have been exploited. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in adverse possession of the land in question and had even filed a civil suit, claiming declaration that he has become owner by way of adverse possession, which was decreed vide judgment dtd. 22/12/1989 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Fazilka. It is, accordingly, contended that there was no occasion for the petitioner to have suffered a statement before the learned Collector, Ferozepur that he has no concern with the land in question. It is submitted that the petitioner has already been adjudged as the owner of the land in question by the learned Civil Court, on the basis of an adverse possession. It is, accordingly, submitted that the authorities under the 1973 Act, have wrongly ordered the eviction of the petitioner.