TEHAL SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR DISTRICT SIRSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gram Panchayat, Ganga, Tehsil Dabhwali, filed an application under section 7 of the Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against Tehal Singh for his ejectment on the ground that he was in unauthorised occupation of the Panchayat land. Similar applications were filed by the same Panchayat on the same allegations against four other persons in regard to their possession of Panchayat land. The applications were contested by all the five persons and they pleaded that they had been cultivating the land prior to 1900; the land did not vest in Panchayat and that in any case they are owners by adverse possession. The Assistant Collector, proceeded to decide the application and by order dated 27th August, 1976 ordered ejectment of the occupants. The occupants appeal remained unsuccessful before the Collector. The occupants have filed CWP No. 1897, 1898, 1902, 1903 and 1907 of 1978, to impugn the orders Annexures P.2 and P.3 in their respective cases.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that these writs deserve to be allowed in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Tara Chand and Fateh Singh v. Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha of Village Atail, 1979 PunLJ 1, and the matter deserves to be remanded to the Assistant Collector for fresh decision as would be indicated in the later part of the judgment.

(3.) In Tara Chand and Fateh Singh's case it was held that when a petition under section 7 of the Act is filed, the moment the occupant raises question of title, the Assistant Collector has to first determine the question of title under section 13-A of the Act as it stands now after the amendment, and in case it is found that the property belongs to the Panchayat, then to proceed with the application for ejectment under section 7 of the Act. In this case, the occupants had raised question of title but the Assistant Collector did not proceed to decide the question of title under section 13-A of the Act but decided the matter under section 7 of the Act. Similarly, the Appellante Court also committed the same error.