BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition is for issuing writ of mandamus/certiorari quashing the order passed by Collector under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act (for short, "the Act"). The petitioner claims to have purchased land from proprietors by paying an amount and states to be in possession of a land without paying any lease or rent. Gram Panchayat, however, filed an application under Section 7(2) of the Act in the year 2002 for ejectment of the petitioner, which was ordered on 2.12.2004. The petitioner, however, filed an appeal as well as petition under Section 13-A of the Act and both the petitions were dismissed. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has raised a question of title which was required to be decided and that these petitions have been dismissed without providing any opportunity to him.

(2.) On notice of motion having been issued, reply has been filed. The counsel for the respondents would refer to the entries in the revenue record to show that the petitioner has no right or title to the land and is just making an attempt. Otherwise, also the petitioner could not show me any material in support of his plea to challenge the impugned order of eviction passed against him. Rather, the Collector, while directing his eviction, has clearly recorded a finding that as per the revenue record petitioner has got no concern with the land and he could not produce any document before the court, which could show that he was partially or otherwise owner of the land. Finding further is that the possession of the petitioner was unauthorised.

(3.) The submission by the petitioner that he was not given opportunity to prove his title also cannot be accepted as it is recorded in the order passed by the Collector that he was given full opportunity before passing the order of his eviction. In fact, the counsel for the respondents has invited my attention to Annexure P-3, which is an entry showing that petitioner Balbir Singh is paying Chakota of Rs.700/- per annum. This would undoubtedly show that the petitioner cannot claim himself to be the owner. The counsel for the petitioner could also not dispute this fact that petitioner is even not the proprietor of the village and had allegedly purchased this land from some proprietor which also he could not show or establish before the authorities. The impugned orders, as such, are legal and valid and would not suffer from any infirmity which would call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.