AMARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH THE JOINT DIRECTOR EXERCISING THE POWERS OF COMMISSIONER, PATIALA DIVISION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON February 2, 1981, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dudar tehsil and district Patiala in the State of Punjab moved before the District Development and Panchayat officer, functioning as Collector Patiala, an application under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 for evicting respondent Amarjit Singh from 12 Kanals 10 Marias of land comprised in Khasra No 592(7 -18) and 593/4 -12) situated in village Dudar aforesaid stating that the land in dispute vested in the Gram Panchayat and the respondent was occupying it as trespasser. Respondent urged in reply that the land did not vest in the Gram Panchayat and stated that he was himself the owner of it or in the alternative a tenant on it under the Gram Panchayat. Both the Collector as also the Commissioner hold that the land vested in the Gram Panchayat and that the respondent was a trespasser on it. Ejectment of the respondent was thus ordered by them vide their assailed orders dated March 31, 1982 and May 27, 1983 respectively.

(2.) THROUGH the same order of May 27, 1983 aforesaid learned Commissioner also dismissed ten other appeals (particulars set out in the last paragraph of the assailed order) stating that the facts of those cases were similar to the ones obtaining in the case of the petitioner. Hence Civil Writ Nos. 6051 and 607 to 611 of 1983 in this Court. All these writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of through this order.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner referred us to rule 21 -A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 and urged that after the petitioner had put in before the learned Collector an application in the form of statement duly signed and verified in the manner provided in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, supported by a copy of the revenue record, within 30 days from the date of accrual of the cause of action, the Collector was obliged to decide the matter after affording to both the parties, a reasonable opportunity to substantiate their respective claims. The learned Collector could not thereafter continue with the summary inquiry envisaged in Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and make the assailed order of eviction against the petitioner. For facility of reference the relevant rule is being reproduced