HIRA LAL Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's ejectment from the suit land, i.e., Killa No. 17/18/1, measuring 6 Kanals and 3 Marlas situated in village Chhaju Nagar, Tehsil Palwal, has consistently been ordered by the Assistant Collector and the Collector under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) vide their respective orders dated January 31, 1978 and November 17, 1978 (Annexure P.1 and P.2). The respondent Panchayat filed an application before the Assistant Collector under Section 7 of the Act on the ground that the petitioner was in unauthorised possession of the suit land and, therefore, he be evicted. In reply to this application, the petitioner raised the following pleas :-

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I find that in view of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act as applicable to Haryana at the relevant time, the learned lower authorities completely misdirected themselves in deciding the issue on merits. This proviso says that if in any proceedings under Section 7 of the Act, question of title is raised the Assistant Collector of the Ist Grade shall first decide the question of title under Section 13-A of the Act. A Division Bench of this Court in Tara Chand and Fateh Singh v. Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha of village Atail and others, 1979 PunLJ 1, has ruled that in the absence of such a course having been adopted by the officers under the Act, the order passed under this section ignoring the plea of title raised by the respondent (petitioner in the instant case) is non-est and without jurisdiction. I, therefore, find that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. Mr. Bishnoi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, however, contends that in view of the latest amendment in this proviso vide Haryana Act No. 15 of 1983, unless the petitioner was able to satisfy the subordinate authorities that prima facie there was a question of title involved, the said authorities were not bound to resort to the procedure prescribed in Section 13-A of the Act. Firstly, at the time when the matter in issue was decided by the subordinate authorities, this amendment of the proviso was nowhere and the same, to my mind, cannot operate retrospectively. Secondly, I am fully satisfied in the light of the material on record that the petitioner (respondent before the Assistant Collector) had a prima facie case to urge that the land in question was not Shamilat Deh.

(3.) In view of the above conclusion of mine, I set aside the impugned orders and send the case back to the Assistant Collector to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and the observations made above. Petition accepted.