AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer made in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the quashment of order dated 18.9.2003 (annexure P-3) passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Gurdaspur exercising the powers of Collector (respondent No. 3) as well as the order dated 11.3.2004 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) exercising the powers of Commissioner (respondent No. 2) whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute measuring 14 marlas and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,88,000/- for the unauthorized use and occupation of the land for a period of 12 years being 20 times of the amount of auction of Rs. 2,450/-.

(2.) IN brief it is the case of the petitioner that he is in possession of the land in dispute measuring 14 marlas (which is adjacent to his house) for the last about 30 years. He has raised the boundary wall and using the same as courtyard and manure pits. According to him, he has also installed a hand pump, toka machine and a manger therein. He had also filed a Civil Suit for the grant of permanent injunction against the Nagar Panchayat, Kalanaur, and its Administrator, restraining them from interfering in his peaceful possession and dispossessing him forcibly and illegally. The requisite injunction was granted by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, vide order dated 31.1.2001 (Annexure P-2). However, liberty was granted to the defendants therein to take possession of the land by adopting the procedure laid down by law. Accordingly, the Gram Panchayat, Kalanaur, moved an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulations Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for getting eviction of the petitioner from the land in dispute and also made a prayer for imposition of penalty upon him to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In order to controvert the allegations contained in the application, the petitioner filed written statement wherein it was pleaded that he had been in possession of the suit land since Consolidation and has constructed a house and raised boundary wall for the last about 30 years. However, on the date fixed for arguments, neither the petitioner nor his counsel put in appearance. Consequently, the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Gurdaspur (respondent No. 3) vide ex parte order dated 18.9.2003 (Annexure P-3) allowed the application filed by the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 4) and ordered the eviction of the petitioner and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,88,000/- for the unauthorized use of the land in dispute. The appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) (respondent No. 2) vide order dated 11.3.2004 (Annexure P-4). Both the orders passed respectively by respondent Nos. 3 and 2 are under challenge in the present petition.

(3.) THE petitioner filed replication to the written statement filed by the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 4) wherein he stated that he had filed CWP No. 4710 of 2004 when he was not aware of the order dated 11.3.2004 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Joint Development Commissioner (respondent No. 2). It has also been pleaded in the replication that the land in dispute was in the physical possession of the petitioner even today.