SURJAN SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the Collector, Patiala, dated February 8, 1980, be confirmed by the Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, vide her order dated February 23, 1981.

(2.) GRAM Panchayat of village Mandhaur, District Patiala, filed an application before the Collector under Section 11 read with Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for decision of the title of the Gram Panchayat and for recovery of possession and also for ejectment of Surjan Singh from the land comprised in Khasra No. 51/116, 4//1(0 -4), 19(1 -10),, 20(6 -18), 21(8 -0), 22(7 -8) measuring 24 Kanals. The petitioner contested the said application on the ground that the land was comprised by him in an auction held in the year 1944 by the Executive Council of Nabha State and he purchased it for a sum of Rs. 9,250/ - and his name was mutated in the revenue records, and, therefore, he became the owner of the land. When he was dispossessed by the Gram Panchayat, he filed a suit in the Court of Sub Judge First Class, Bassi, on February 16, 1969, and that suit was decreed on June 18, 1970. In pursuance of the decree, he had been put in possession of the property on September 5, 1972, and he continued to be in possession of the property thereafter and that the land cannot be described as Shamlat Deh within the definition of Section 2(g) of the Act. The Collector by his order dated February 8, 1980, directed the petitioner to handover the possession of the property. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, by way of appeal which was also unsuccessful. The petitioners, therefore, approached this Court for quashing the orders of respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the property was sold in public auction under the Orders of the Executive council in the year 1944. Annexure P -1 filed by the petitioner clearly shows that the auction was held and that the petitioner purchased the property in the auction for a sum of Rs. 9250/ - and also paid the consideration by depositing the sum in the treasury and mutation was also effected in the name of the petitioner. Thus, it is clear that in the year 1944 itself the petitioner was put in possession of the property. Learned counsel for Gram Panchayat states that mutation does not prove the possession of the petitioner. Entries made in Khasra being entries made in an official record by public officers in discharge of their duties are themselves relevant facts and may be considered by the Courts as evidence of possession though not of title.