GURDIAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment 8 Civil Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 7965, 8407, 8443, 8451, 8531, 8542, 9750 and 10018 of 2004 are being disposed of as they are directed against the common orders of the Commissioner dated 19.2.2004.

(2.) THE facts as extracted from the pleadings of the parties are that the Gram Panchayat had filed a petitioner under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereafter known as 'the Act') against the petitioners claiming that they are the unauthorised occupants of the land and deserve to be evicted. The petitioners in their written statements raised a counter claim that the petitioners were in fact the owners of the property in dispute as per the revenue record and the land in dispute is 'Burd Baramadgi' (subject to river action) and, therefore, it comes within the definition of Section 2(g) of the Act. It is pleaded that the land which has become Shamlat due to the river action or has been reserved as Shamlat Deh and is entered as pasture, pond or playground in the revenue does not come within the definition of Shamlat Deh and the Panchayat had no concern with the land and consequently all proceedings under Section 7 were null and void. In any case, the petitioners pleaded that they had raised the question of title and, therefore, the Asstt. Collector had no power to enter upon the controversy. The Asstt. Collector after pursuing the pleadings of the parties took cognizance of the fact that the question of title was involved and then proceeded to decide it vide his order dated 5.6.2002. The plea of title raised by the petitioners was rejected and it was held that the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the property in dispute. Aggrieved by the order of the Asstt. Collector the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Collector which was dismissed vide order dated 14.8.2002 and revision against this order was also dismissed by the Commissioner vide his order dated 19.2.2004. The petitioners have impugned these orders of the revenue authorities by way of present writ petitions.

(3.) SECTION 2(g) of the Act as applicable to the State of Haryana shows that the definition of Shamlat is both inclusive and exclusive. By inclusive it is meant that certain areas which have been described in the Act are included in the definition of Shamlat Deh while certain lands have excluded from the purview of Shamlat Deh. Explanation (i) to Section 2(g)(vi) says that the land which becomes or had become shamilat deh due to river action or has been reserved as shamilat in villages subject to river action except shamilat deh entered as pasture, pond or playground in the revenue records.