Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1420 (PNJ)

Bhartu v. Commissioner, Rohtak Division

2000-11-21

JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, K.S.GAREWAL

body2000
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioners have approached this court to challenge the orders of their eviction from the land measuring 80 Kanals 16 Marlas. The concurrent findings recorded by the authorities under the Statute are that the land belongs to the respondent Gram Panchayat. The petitioners "have been shown in cultivating possession of the land for the first time in Kharif 1987 under the orders of the Naib Tehsildar........There is no other document that could prove on record that they are co-sharers on the land in dispute..........The mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat has never been challenged." Thus the petitioners were ordered to be evicted. The petitioners pray that the orders, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P-1 to P-3, be quashed. A few facts may be noticed. 2. The petitioners allege that on June 1, 1995, the Assistant Collector had illegally sanctioned the mutation of the land measuring 8574 Bighas 15 Biswas including the land in dispute in favour of the respondent Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, in the year 1989 the Gram Panchayat had filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 for the ejectment of the petitioners from the land in their possession. This petition was allowed by the Assistant Collector vide order dated March 31, 1992, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-3, with the writ petition. The petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated September 8, 1998. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. The petitioners filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the Commissioner on April 9, 1999. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P.1 with the writ petition. The petitioners allege that the land does not vest in the panchayat. It belongs to the village proprietary body. There is decree of the Civil Court in their favour. Thus the panchayat has no right to seek their eviction and that the authorities have erred in passing the impugned orders. On these premises, the petitioners pray that the orders copies of which have been produced as Annexures P.1 to P.3 with the writ petition be quashed. 3. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent Panchayat. Averments made by the petitioners have been controverted. On these premises, the petitioners pray that the orders copies of which have been produced as Annexures P.1 to P.3 with the writ petition be quashed. 3. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent Panchayat. Averments made by the petitioners have been controverted. It has been inter alia averred that "the land in dispute was leased out for income of the panchayat prior to taking of unauthorised possession by the petitioners......" They have no right or title. Thus, no ground to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the competent authority is made out. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 5. Mr. Malik contends that the panchayat has no right or title to the property in dispute. Thus, it could not have sought eviction of the petitioners. Consequently it has been contended that in view of the decree of the Civil Court passed in favour of the petitioners, the impugned orders are wholly untenable and should be quashed. On the other hand Mr. Arvind Singh has pointed out that the petitioners have not produced any evidence on record which may show that they have any title to the property. The authorities have recorded concurrent findings after appreciating the evidence. No ground for interference is made out. 6. Admittedly, the panchayat had filed the petition for eviction of the petitioners. It had produced evidence consisting of a copy of the jamabandi Ex.A.1 and Khasra Girdawari Ex. A.2. The Sarpanch had appeared as a witness. The present petitioners have produced only oral evidence consisting of a copy of the jamabandi Ex.A.1 and Khasra Girdawari Ex.A.2. The Sarpanch had appeared as a witness. No document including the judgment or decree passed by the civil Court was ever relied upon or produced. It is on examination of the evidence that the Assistant Collector had found that the petitioners had no right or title to the property. Thus, the claim of the respondent Gram Panchayat was accepted. 7. Mr. Malik contends that a question of title was involved. Thus the court should have considered the case under Section 13-A of the Act. The contention is misconceived. No evidence has been produced by the petitioner to indicate that they had even prima facie title to the property. No evidence has been produced to show that they had any right in the property. Thus the court should have considered the case under Section 13-A of the Act. The contention is misconceived. No evidence has been produced by the petitioner to indicate that they had even prima facie title to the property. No evidence has been produced to show that they had any right in the property. Consequently, no ground for interference with the orders passed by the authorities is made out. 8. Mr. Malik contends that there is a decree of Civil Court in favour of the petitioners. A copy of the judgment has not been produced. Even a copy of the decree has not been produced. Still further, these documents were not produced even before the Revenue Courts. In the petition only a part of the judgment has been reproduced. As the subject matter of the suit is not clear from the extract no inference can be conclusively drawn. Without knowing the context of the observations, it shall not be safe to record any conclusion on the basis of the extract especially in view of the fact that judgment or decree of the Civil Court were not produced before the Revenue authorities. No other point has been raised. No merit in the petition. It is consequently dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.