CHARAN SINGH Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR PANCHAYATS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHARAN Singh and Maghar Singh have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari against the respondents for quashing of the impugned orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 vide which it was ordered for the ejectment of the petitioner from the land in question under Section 7 (1) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 from Khasra No. 375 Min. measuring 2 bighas 0 biswas.

(2.) THE case set-up by the petitioners is that they purchased the land from Smt. Ishar Kaur widow of Hazura Singh comprised in khasra No. 375 Min. Measuring 2 bighas along with some other land vide registered sale deed dated 11. 2. 1974. The total land purchased was about 2 bighas and 2 biswas for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/ -. They obtained possession of the land from Smt. Ishar Kaur and they were in possession of the same till 1974. The petitioner obtained notice from Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nabha to the effect that the land comprised in Khasra No. 375 Min. measuring 2 bighas situated in village Kansoha Khurd belonged to the panchayat. This notice was issued under Section 7 (2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961. The petitioners contested this notice and submitted that the land in dispute did not fall within the definition of shamilat deh and that the Collector had no jurisdiction to try the proceedings. It was also pleaded that the land in dispute along with other land was purchased from Smt. Ishar Kaur and the petitioners are the owners of the same. During the course of the proceedings the petitioners even produced a copy of the order dated 4. 1. 1965 informing the Assistant Collector 1st Grade that previously similar notice to Hazura Singh son of Bishna husband of Smt. Ishar Kaur was given and it was held by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade that the land in dispute did not fall within the definition of shamilat deh and was therefore, exempted from the provisions of the Act. Inspite of the earlier orders dated 4. 1. 1965 the orders Annexures P-3 was passed without giving any reasons and it was ordered for the eviction of the petitioner from the disputed land. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal before the respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 though took notice of the order dated 4. 1. 1965 but held in wrongful manner that the said order is not binding upon the Gram Panchayat as it was not a party before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. Now the challenge has been given in this writ petition to Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4, on the ground that the land in question was purchased by the petitioners from Smt. Ishar Kaur and the orders Annexures P. 3 and P. 4 could not be passed in view of the orders dated 4. 1. 1965 Annexure P. 2. If the Gram Panchayat wants to avoid the orders Annexure P-2, it has the right to do so by taking appropriate proceedings under Section 10 of the Act. With the passing of the orders Annexures P-3 and P-4, respondents No. 1 and 2 acted in an illegal manner and as such both the impugned orders Annexures P-3 and P-4 are without jurisdiction.

(3.) I have heard Shri Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate, on behalf of the petitioners and Shri P. S. Chhinna, Sr. DAG (P), on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. No body has given appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3.