AJIT SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is a resident of village Ghakewal (Rahon) Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Jalandhar, claims himself to be a tenant on the land which is said to be the property. of the Punjab Wakf Board. Respondent No. 3, the Gram Panchayat of village Ghakewal, preferred an application Under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') before the Collector, alleging interalia that the Gram Panchayat was, infact, the owner of the land aforesaid and that the petitioner was unauthorised possession thereof. The petitioner appeared before the Collector in response to the notice issued on the application and raised various objections to its maintainability interalia claiming that the Gram Panchayat of village Ghakewal, was not the owner of the land in dispute as the same did not form part of its revenue estate and that the said land was owned by the Punjab Wakf Board and being situate within the boundary limits of village Rahon, was not subjected to any proceedings Under Section 7 of the Act. The Collector on an assessment of the rival contentions, vide his order dated 24th June, 1981 - Annexure P-1, dismissed the application giving a finding that the Gram Panchayat was not the owner of the land in dispute and that the same vested in the Punjab Wakf Board. For arriving at this conclusion, the Collector relied upon the Notification Annexure P-2 Dated February, 1971, issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Wakf Act 1954 identifying the land in dispute as a Wakf property, as also the various jamabandis produced by the parties. The Gram Panchayat, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Joint Director, Panchayats who exercising powers of the Commissioner under the Act, remanded the case to the District Development and Panchayat Officer with the observation that the Collector should first determine whether the land fell in the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat or not. The Collector, thereafter, heard both the parties and recorded a positive finding basing himself on the record produced by Sh. Prem Nath, Clerk of the Municipal Committee, Rahon, which included a notification dated 15th March, 1986, and recorded a positive finding that the Gram Panchayat of village Ghakewal was not the owner of the land in dispute as the said land fell within the boundaries of Market Committee, Rahon. The matter was, thereafter, taken up before the Commissioner once again who vide his order dated 27th July, 1990, Annexure P-3 to the petition, allowed the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat holding that the land in dispute was the property of the Gram Panchayat, Ghakewal and as the petitioner was in illegal possession thereof, he was liable to be ejected. The commissioner for arriving at his conclusion relied upon a letter of the Executive Officer of the Market Committee, Rahon dated 10th November, 1986 in which the said officer had intimated that the land in dispute did not fall within the area of Municipal Committee, Rahon. The Commissioner also found that from the perusal of jamabandis for the year 1973-74, it was clear that the land in dispute has initially been reserved as a burial ground for Muslims but as this community had virtually ceased to exist in this village, the land had been put under cultivation and was not being used as a burial ground and as such, this land was no longer a property of the Punjab wakf Board. Aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner, the petitioner has come to this Court by way of the present writ petition.

(2.) MR . Goel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that in the light of the positive findings of the District Development and Panchayat Officer dated 25th March, 1985 (which has not been alluded to by the Director in his order Annexure P-3), it could not be said that the land in dispute was the property of the Gram Panchayat. He has further urged that the letter of the Executive Officer relied upon by the Commissioner was not before the District Development and Panchayat Officer at any stage and this document could not be considered at that stage. He has further argued that the notification dated 18th March, 1986, relied upon by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, had also not been considered by the Director.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance and find that this petition deserves to succeed.