CHANDER PAL Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that Balraj Singh respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') against the petitioners. In the application he pleaded that on the Eastern side of the house of the petitioners was a public street vesting in the Gram Panchayat. It was further pleaded that the petitioners herein had done some filling and had closed that part of the street which touched their property situated on the Western side of the said street by a brick wall on one side and fixing a door on the other. He further pleaded that the flow of water was through the said street from South to North and as a result of the closing of the street by the petitioners, the water, especially rain water, collected in front of his own house, causing difficulties for him. The petitioners contested the application and took the stand that there was no public street at the place alleged by the applicant. In fact, the land in dispute was part of their property and the gate in question had been affixed about 30 yards ago the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade recorded evidence of the parties and inspected the spot on September 8, 1992. Ultimately by order Annexure P-3 dated February 10, 1993, Assistant Collector, 1st Grade dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order, respondent No. 3 dated February 10, 1993, Assistant Collector, 1st Grade dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order, respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Collector by order, respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Collector by order Annexure P-4 dated October 11, 1993. It is the order passed by. the Collector which has been assailed in this writ petition on various are besides the official respondents, Balraj Singh who was applicant before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade and the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat has supported the case set up by Balraj Singh in the written statement filed in this Court. Written statement has also been filed by respondent No. 3.

(2.) Mr. I.S. Balhara, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended: -

(3.) The contention of learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4, on the other hand, is that the finding recorded by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade was that the street in question was a blind alley. It was further contended that even if that finding is assumed to be correct, even blind alley would fall within the definition of 'Samilat deh' as defined in Section 2(g)(4) as interpreted in Jhalla Ram v. Gram Panchayat, Kosli, (1982)84 P.L.R. 77. They have further contended that question of title can be stated to have been raised only if a prima facie case is made out to that effect. No such case having been made out in the case in hand, there was no question of the case in hand, there was no question of deciding the application as a regular suit. It has also been contended that the Collector had relied on irrefutable documentary evidence in coming to the conclusion that the street in question was, in fact, a street and had been encroached upon by the petitioners sometimes after April, 1985.