(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. No. 5057 of 1992 and Regular Second Appeal Nos. 354 to 356 of 1985 as the question of law and facts involved in these cases is identical.
(2.) PETITIONERS seek issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Annexure P-13 and the Collector, Annexure P-14 as well as resolution of the Gram Panchayat, Annexure P-15. Briefly put, it is the case of the petitioners that Hari Chand petitioner purchased 6 Kanals 16 Marlas of land for a sum of Rs. 2550/- in open auction held on 1.5.1966. He paid a sum of Rs. 637.50 on the spot as 1/4th share of the total sale consideration vide receipt No. 47 dated 1.5.1966, Annexure P-1, and the remaining sale consideration was paid by him vide receipt dated 13.7.1966 Annexure P-2. A sale deed Annexure P-3 was executed between the parties. Likewise, Shanu Ram too purchased 4 Kanals of land, paid 1/4th price at the spot vide Annexure P-4 and remaining amount vide Annexure P-5 and a sale deed was executed in his favour. Similarly, Arjan Dev purchased 5 Kanals and 17 Marlas of land vide documents Annexure P-7 and P-8 and in his case also sale deed was executed. Another brother of the petitioner also purchased 4 Kanals of land vide documents Annexures P-10 to P-12 which property fell to the share of Hari Chand in a family settlement who is stated to be cultivating that same since the date he became its a absolute owner. Thakar Dass petitioner No. 4 purchased plot measuring 40 Marlas comprised in Khasra No. 668 from one Dharam Chand s/o Beg Ram who had earlier purchased the same from the contesting respondent in open auction. He also purchased another plot comprised in Khasra No. 668 from one Smt. Ashawanti. This way he too is in possession of the aforesaid area purchased as owner. It is the case of the petitioners that despite the fact that they have paid full price of the land purchased way back in the year 1966, yet the Gram Panchayat without any legal basis sought eviction of the petitioners under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') which prayer has been illegally granted by the prescribed authority and further appeal filed by the petitioners too met with same fate. The petitioners have thus challenged the order of prescribed authority-Annexure P-13, order of the Collector Annexure P-14 and the resolution dated 19.3.1992, Annexure P-15, terming these to be wholly illegal, arbitrary, against law and material on record on the ground (i) no proper service was effected upon Hari Chand and so the proceedings conducted against him are non est; (ii) that petitioners No. 1 to 3 are bona fide purchasers for value, having paid the whole amount of consideration way back in the year 1966 and in possession of the same as owner and so the eviction proceedings under Section 7 of the Act were wholly unwarranted; (iii) that question of title having been raised by the petitioners, it was incumbent upon the concerned authority to refer the same for adjudication in terms of Section 13-A of the Act; and (iv) that the orders are cryptic and non-speaking.
(3.) PURSUANT to the notice issued by the Court, respondent Gram Panchayat put in appearance and filed written statement in the form of affidavit of Chander Bhan, Member Panchayat, Gram Panchayat, Rania. The respondent in his reply has termed the various transactions set up by the petitioners in support of their claims to be wholly illegal and void. According to the respondent, Gram Panchayat could not sell the land to the petitioners even with the approval of the Government, although in the case of the petitioners, the Gram Panchayat had not even obtained the approval of the Government. According to the respondent, as per Section 5 of the Act, Gram Panchayat can utilise or dispose of the land vested in it ''for the benefit of inhabitants of the village concerned in the manner prescribed''. Rule 12 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (for short 'the Rules') describes the manner in which the land in shamlat deh can be sold for the purposes enumerated therein. Thus, as there has been non-compliance of the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules, the petitioners did not acquire any right and hence the petition is wholly misconceived. It was further asserted that no sale deed was executed by the answering respondent in favour of the alleged vendees. Replying to the averments made in the petition that the regular second appeal filed by the petitioners has been admitted, he denied the same for want of knowledge. Regarding possession of the petitioners over the disputed land, it was stated that the answering respondent has already taken possession of the land in dispute on 17.9.1989 vide rapat roznamcha No. 21 of the same date. The order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Annexure P-13 and the order passed by the Collector, Annexure P-14, was defended. Other averments made by the petitioners with regard to the non- service upon them or that they had raised some question of title has been refuted. It has been further stated that admission of regular second appeal has no bearing on the point in controversy. Otherwise too, regular second appeals are likely to be dismissed. It was thus prayed that the petition deserves to be dismissed and same may be dismissed.