RAM SINGH Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR PANCHAYATS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment of mine will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 3526, 3634 to 3644, 3649, 3908 of 1987, 5210 and 5607 of 1989 as the point involved in all of them is the same. Both the counsel for the parties are agreed that the fact of the case be picked up from Civil Writ Petition No. 3634 of 1987.

(2.) THE broad and the basic facts of the case as they emerge from the writ petition and the application for ejectment are that the Gram Panchayat, respondent No. 3 filed an application before the Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayats (exercing the powers of the Collector) (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Collector'), Patiala respondent No. 2, under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on the ground that the land in dispute is 'shamilat' according to Section 2 (g) of the Act and that the petitioners were in unauthorised possession of the same and, therefore, liable to be ejected therefrom. The petitioners claimed that the land was not Shamilat Deh and that it was wrongly shown in the revenue record for the year 1980-81 as Shamilat Deh. The petitioners claimed to be in continuous possesion of the land through their predecessors in-interest from time immemorial, that is before 1949. The land was claimed to be Banjar Qadim Makbooza Malkan. It was further stated that the land was never used for the common purposes of the village community according to entries of the revenue record at the time of the commencement of the Act. The petitioners claimed that they were in possession as Makbooja Mushtarka Malkan for more than 12 years immediately before the commencement of the Act. It was further claimed that the land in dispute was Ghaggar Burdi and Darya Burdi and Ghaggar Baramdgi Darya Baramdgi. It was further the case of the petitioners in the written statement that the mutation after the consolidation of holdings was sanctioned in their favour vide mutation No. 2035 as mentioned in the Jamabandi for the year 1955-56. The authority of Inder Singh Administrator of the Gram Panchayat to file the application for the eviction was challenged on the ground that he was not authorised to file application for the eviction and that no document appointing him as Administrator was filed along with the application.

(3.) ON the basis of above mentioned relevant pleadings in the application and the written statement, copies of which were produced before me at the time of the hearing and which have been marked as Annexures C-l and C-2, the parties led their evidence. After perusing the evidence, the authorities below while passing the order of eviction have by and large based their orders of eviction by recording the finding the gist which is given below : (i) that the land in dispute was owned by the Gram Panchayat as it is shown to be Shamilat in the revenue record ; (ii) that the individual possession of the petitioners in the revenue record is shown after 1971 ; (iii) that in the jamabandi for the year 1980-81 the petitioners have been shown to be Chakotedar meaning thereby that the petitioners were in possession of the land in dispute as tenants and, therefore, they could not challenge the ownership of Gram Panchayat; (iv) that the petitioners did dot challenge the ownership of the Gram Panchayat under Section 11 of the Act. The land in dispute was allotted to the Gram Panchayat in lieu of the land which was Shamilat before consolidation of holdings ; and (v) that the exemption of Burdigi Baramdgi was deleted from the Act in the year 1976.