HAZARI AND OTHERS Vs. COLLECTOR, ROHTAK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hazari and three others have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order of SDM dated September 21, 1981 (Annexure P/3) allowing the application of the Gram Panchayat Baliana under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order of the Collector dated April 12, 1982 (Annexure P/2) dismissing their appeal.

(2.) The petitioners' case is that the land measuring 47 kanals 19 marlas was owned and possessed by the proprietors of Baliana, the ancestors of the petitioners created a dohli of this land and delivered possession to a temple. The last Mahant of the temple was Baba Parkasha Nand. In 1963, Baba Parkasha Nand created a lease of the land in favour of the petitioners for a period of 5 years. Baba Parkasha Nand left the village and the dohli reverted to the proprietors but the petitioners continued to cultivate the land. The Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Act on November 7, 1979 for eviction of the petitioners. The defence of the petitioners was that the Sarpanch had no right to file the application because the land in dispute was a dohli which had been given by the proprietors for charitable/religious purposes. dohlidar had no right to transfer the land in favour of any one, therefore, the alleged transfer in favour of the panchayat was collusive. When the dohli came to an end the land reverted to the original owners. The petitioners examined witnesses and produced documentary evidence in support of their case. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade came to the conclusion that the ownership of the land was of the panchayat because dohlidar Baba Parkasha Nand had made a statement in favour of the panchayat in the civil court and the suit had been decreed in favour of the Panchayat. Consequently, the petitioners had obtained the land in dispute from Baba Parkasha Nand on lease for five years in 1963. The lease created by dohlidar would come to an end on the termination of the dohli and the possession would become unauthorize. Even according to the Sharat Wazubal Arz, on termination of the dohli the land would revert to the owners.

(3.) In appeal, the petitioners reiterated their defence but did not succeed. It was held that from the jamabandi 1973-74 the Gram Panchayat was owner of the land in dispute. The Civil Court had also upheld the ownership of the panchayat land. After the dohli had extinguished, the land vested in the panahcyat. Reference was made to the condition of dohli contained in Sharat Wazubal Arz which provided that on termination of the dohli the land would revert to the original owner.