GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. KANSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-Gram Panchayat filed an application Under Sections 4 and 7 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 against Kanshi Ram (respondent No. 1 ). This application was allowed by the Collector vide Order dated February 15, 1989. Aggrieved by the order, Kanshi Ram filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner vide his Order dated March 28, 1989. To challenge these orders, the respondent filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court. The learned Single Judge having accepted the petition, the Gram Panchayat has fifed the present appeal.

(2.) MR . R. S. Sangwan, counsel, for the appellant has contended that the findings recorded by the teamed Single Judge are totally contrary to the record and cannot, thus, be sustained. The claim made on behalf of the appellant has been controverted by Mr. I. S. Balhara, counsel for the respondent-Kanshi Ram.

(3.) THE claim as made by the appellant-Panchayat in the written statement was not controverted by the respondent-writ petitioner by filing any replication. Besides this, the Collector had found as a fact that "the respondent has taken the land in dispute on lease from the Gram Panchayat in the year 1975-76. After this, it has been recorded in the Jamabandi for the year 1975-76 in the column of cultivation as Kanshi Ram s/o Hart Ram resident of village as Gair Marusi. . . " He further found that "the land in dispute was left for school in consolidation and Panchayat has started leasing it out and the income was started to be spent for the welfare of the general public. The respondent has taken the land in dispute on lease from the Gram Panchayat for Rs. 1500.00 in 1975-76. After that he had never taken the land in dispute on lease. From this fact, it is proved that he is in unauthorised occupation of the land in dispute". The findings recorded were confirmed by the Commissioner and the respondent's appeal was dismissed in limine. In spite of this, the learned Single Judge has taken the view that the Panchayat "did not lead any proof before respondent No. 2 that the land had vested in it and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not give any positive finding that the land had so vested. . . . " Before any action could be taken under the Act. "it was incumbent on the authorities to come to a conclusion that the land vests" in the Panchayat on these premises, the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner were set aside. Was this correct ?