JAI RAM Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Social Education and Panchayat Officer, Palwal, respondent No. 4 filed an application before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Palwal, claiming ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that he was in illegal possession of the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat. Before the Assistant Collector, the petitioner raised a plea that he had been in possession of this land for more than 12 years prior to the coming into force of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1954. In support of his contention he relied upon the Jamabandis for the year 1940-41 and onwards. However, in the Jamabandi for the year 1954-55, the land was shown to be in the cultivating possession of the Gram Panchayat. On this ground, the Assistant Collector held that since the cultivating possession of the petitioner was not continuous, he was not entitled to the protection of section 4(3) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 .

(2.) The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the District Collector, Gurgaon.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petition deserves to succeed. It is settled law that where the long standing possession of a party is established, stray entries in Khasra Girdawaris for one or two years showing possession of another party have to be ignored. The Financial Commissioners in the States of Punjab and Haryana have been consistently taking this view which has commended itself to this Court also. Even if it is held that in the year 1955 the possession was rightly shown to be that of the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner had succeeded in showing that he was in continuous possession for a period of 12 years on the date when the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1954, came into force. In the circumstances, the Assistant Collector, First Grade had no jurisdiction to evict him under the summary provision of section 7-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 . For the same reason, the appellate order passed by the District Collector, Gurgaon, has to be held to be erroneous and I order accordingly. This petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders, dated November 19, 1976, passed by the learned District Collector Gurgaon, and the order, dated July 8, 1976, passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Palwal, are set aside with no order as to costs.