GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. JOINT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GRAM Panchayat, Khanpur which has been found to be the owner of the dispute property, has moved this Court for quashing of order passed by respondent No. 1 directing that the cost of the disputed land be recovered from respondent No. 2 under Rule 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. In order to determine whether the direction given by respondent No. 1 to the Collector (District Development and Panchayat Officer), Sangrur to ensure proper execution of order Annexure P4 dated 27.1.1994 regarding recovery of cost of the land from respondent No. 2 is legally sustainable, it would be proper to make a brief reference to the facts.

(2.) IN the consolidation proceedings held in 60's for village Khanpur, Khasra No. 973 was left as Gairmumkin Pond and one side of the pond was left as a passage which was shown as such in 'Massavi' of the village. Later on, it was also reflected in the 'Aks Sajra' of village Khanpur (Annexure P1). This passage was used by several persons who had plots in and around the pond. Respondent No. 2 was allotted plot bearing Nos. 986 and 987 measuring 5 kanals 2 marlas for the purpose of abadi and also for the purpose of manure pit. After completion of consolidation proceedings, respondent No. 2 constructed his house over land allotted to him. It is said that water pipe line was laid beneath the passage some 7 to 8 years ago, but, respondent No. 2 forcibly encraoched upon the said passage some 5 to 6 years prior to the institution of the proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The Gram Panchayat filed an application before the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Sangrur under Section 7 of the Act of 1961 for ejectment of respondent No. 2 from land measuring 1 bisba 13 bisbansi falling in Khasra No. 973 Khewat No. 291, Khatoni No. 471. This application was contested by respondent No. 2 who pleaded that the disputed land does not vest in Gram Panchayat and the Panchayat is not its owner. He also claimed that the land was in his possession for the last 40 years and it was never used as a pond or a passage. The Gram Panchayat adduced oral as well as documentary evidence to prove that the land vested in the Gram Panchayat. Respondent No. 2 appeared and made a statement to the effect that the land was in his possession for the last many years. After considering the rival pleadings and evidence, the District Development and Panchayat Officer held that the property in dispute is a passage and is a part of Khasra No. 973. He also held that Panchayat is the owner of the land and respondent No. 2 has failed to prove his long possession over the same. On the basis of these findings, the District Development and Panchayat Officer declared respondent No. 2 to be in unauthorised occupation of the land and ordered his ejectment.

(3.) THE Gram Panchayat has assailed the impugned order on the ground that no such direction could have been given by respondent No. 1 under rule 4 because the disputed property constituted part of a passage and no body has got right over the land which is being used by the people of the village.