HARKESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Gram Panchayat of Guhna, respondent No. 4 herein, sought the ejectment of Harkesh petitioner under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , on the ground that the petitioner was in an unauthorised possession of the land which being Shamilat Deh vested in the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner challenged the right of the Gram Panchayat to evict him on two grounds : (1) that the land was assessed to land revenue, had been in his individual cultivating possession as co-sharer before 26.1.1950 and that the land in his such possession did not exceed his share in the Shamilat Deh of the village; and (2) that he had been in cultivating possession of the said Shamilat Deh land for more than twelve years prior to the commencement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 , without payment of rent or charges not exceeding the land revenue and cesses payable thereon.

(2.) The first plea of the petitioner was grounded on sub-clause (viii) of clause (5) of sub-section (g) of Section 2 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - hereinafter referred to as the Act - and the second one is sought to be underpinned by the provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act.

(3.) The Assistant Collector First Grade, Kaithal, by his order, dated 30.11.1963 (copy annexure 'A' to the petition), ordered the ejectment of the petitioner. That order was, however, set aside by the Collector in appeal, vide his order dated 31.3.1964 (copy annexure 'B' to the petition). The Collector held that the petitioner had been in cultivating possession of the land as co-sharer without payment of rent from the year 1920-21 to the year 1960-61 and after consolidation operations in the village had been put into possession of the land in lieu of the aforesaid land that he had held in his possession prior to the consolidation operations. It was further held by the Collector that for the intervening period no material being brought on the record contradicting the continuance of the petitioner's possession, the Court, in view of the provisions of Section 114, illustration (d), Indian Evidence Act, would presume the continuance of the possession of the petitioner on the land.