MIR SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts leading to this litigation are as follows :respondent 3 Gram Panchayat filed an application on 28. 9. 1976 before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Charkhi Dadri, and raised a contention that Mir Singh (present petitioner) constructed a wall in Khasra No. 358 by committing encroachment. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade arrived at the conclusion that the said Khasra No. 358 is the Shamlat land and construction of a wall on that portion was by way of encroachment and was a violation of an agreement under which Mir Singh (present petitioner) was entitled to use the land. He, therefore, directed to remove the wall. Against that decision appeal was filed before the Collector. The Collector by order dated 18. 4. 1979 remanded the case to the Assistant Collector with a direction to ascertain whether the construction of the wall resulted into blocking the thorough fare. There-upon the Assistant Collector undertook the spot inspection, and also considered the evidence and arrived at a conclusion that the construction of the wall in Khasra No. 358 was in violation of the terms of the agreement under which the said Mir Singh was entitled to enjoy the property. He, therefore, directed that the wall should be removed so as to provide 8 feet wide path. Against that decision the present petitioner filed appeal before the Collector. It was contended that in an earlier litigation, the Civil Court had held that the Gram Panchayat was not the owner of the said property. That submission did not find favour with the Collector on the ground that the Gram Panchayat was not a party in litigation before the Civil Court. In my opinion, that observation was absolutely correct. The Collector while disposing of the appeal took into consideration the other pieces of evidence and the spot inspection made by the Assistant Collector and upheld the order passed by the Assistant Collector. The petitioner, therefore, has now come to this Court.

(2.) THE counsel for the petitioner submitted that if a question of title is raised in proceedings Under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, it was necessary to adjudicate that question by following the procedure as laid down in the Civil Procedure Code as provided Under Section 7 (3) of the Act of 1961, as applicable to Haryana State. In support of that contention, he brought may attention to a case reported in 1979 P. L. J. 1 (Tara Chand v. Gram Panchayat, ). In that case the plea regarding the ownership of the land was raised in proceedings Under Section 7, and it was adjudicated in favour of the Gram Panchayat. Subsequent to that, the aggrieved party filed application Under Section 13-B of the said Act, and raised the similar question as to the category of land and its ownership. The question was whether the adjudication Under Section 7 of the said Act would operate as a bar to consider the same question Under Section 13-B of the Act. Their Lordships were of the view that proceedings Under Section 7 is a summary enquiry, and it does not contemplate an enquiry into the question whether the land is Shamlat deh or not. From that angle it was observed that the scope of Section 13-B is wider, and under that provision enquiry can be held as to whether the land is Shamlat deh or not. These observations were followed with approval in a case of Dharampal v. State of Haryana, 1982 PLJ 369. In that case their Lordships observed that in proceedings Under Section 7, if one of the parties raises a question of title, the Assistant Collector should proceed to consider that question Under Sections 13-A and 13-B of the Act, and only thereupon he would be justified in taking action Under Section 7. Same is the view expressed in case of Santa Singh v. Asstt. Collector, 1984 PLJ 396, while approving the earlier two decisions referred above. The latest view is expressed in case of Chatar Singh v. the Collector, Hissar, (1995-3)111 P. L. R. 82.