BRAHMA NAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 24.7.2003, demarcation was carried out by Girdawar on instructions of Block Development and Panchayat Officer. Thereafter Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (for short, "the Act") against the petitioner. The application was dismissed on 30.5.2006. Gram Panchayat filed an appeal against the same which was accepted and the case remanded for consideration of both the demarcation reports. The petitioner has impugned this order.

(2.) THE Collector while declining the prayer of the petitioner, noticed that khasra number of the disputed land is 27 which is owned by the Gram Panchayat. He also found that Gram Panchayat had earlier got the disputed khasra number demarcated under the orders of Block Development and Panchayat Officer through Block Samiti, Patwari on 24.7.2003. Samiti Patwari did not file the site plan showing the encroachment. The Gram Panchayat filed a fresh application for demarcation and Local Commissioner was appointed by the Collector. Demarcation report was received on 7.8.2005. Respondent was not found in any unauthorised possession at the spot. Collector also observed that there is a pucca road built at the disputed land which is correctly 3 karams wide at the spot. The application filed by the Panchayat was accordingly dismissed. The Commissioner, however, in an appeal observed that as per jamabandi for the year 1988-89, the disputed land is owned by Gram Panchayat and that it is not clear from the conflicting competing demarcation reports whether the petitioner was in possession over the land or not. He accordingly found that thorough enquiry in regard to the report of Local Commissioner was needed to see if it is really in possession of the petitioner. He accordingly set aside the order passed by the Collector and remanded the case to him for rehearing. The petitioner has, thus, impugned this order before this Court.

(3.) THE Local Commissioner accordingly has inspected the spot. He has now placed his report on record. As per the report, the Local Commissioner got measured the passage/path from Kanungo and Patwari. The width of the passage was measured at different places in the presence of Local Commissioner which was found to be 3 karams on all the four different places so measured. All present at the spot did not dispute regarding the width of the passage, which was found to be 3 karams wide at every place. The length, though was not measured, but all those present at the spot unanimously agreed that passage was 59 karams long. The Local Commissioner, however, still went on to make some observation regarding the location of the aforesaid passage. It was pointed out that in case distance was measured from the pucca point X the passage would come within the land of the petitioner, Brahma Nand cutting across the aforesaid two houses of Balbir Chand and Kartar Chand whereas Brahma Nand, petitioner, stated that location of the passage was perfectly correct and no encroachment was made. The Local Commissioner did not take the measurement of distance between the pucca point and the passage since it was not part of his reference while detailing him as a Local Commissioner.