Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 153 (PNJ)

Ajit Singh v. State of Haryana

2001-01-29

JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, N.K.SUD

body2001
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioner prays that the orders dated September 10, 1986, February 26, 1999, April 19, 1999 and September 22, 1999, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P-11 P-5, P-6 and P-7 with the writ petition be quashed. 2. A few facts may be noticed. On September 7, 1985, the Gram Panchayat filed an application against the petitioner for his ejectment from the land measuring 10 Marlas. This petition was accepted by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide his order dated September 10, 1986. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. The petitioner did not challenge this order anywhere. So, it attained finality. More than 10 years later the Gram Panchayat initiated proceedings for the execution of this order. The petitioner raised certain objections. These were rejected vide order dated February 26, 1999. A copy of this order is on record as Annexure P-5. The petitioner filed an appeal. It was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated April 19, 1999. A copy of the order is at Annexure P-6. He filed a review petition which was dismissed by the Commissioner on September 22, 1999. A copy of this order is Annexure P-7. 3. The petitioner now challenges all the orders and prays that these be quashed. 4. A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 controverting the claim made by the petitioner. A separate reply has also been filed on behalf of respondents No. 5 and 6. 5. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 6. Mr. Saini contends that the order dated September 11, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector for the eviction of the petitioner from the land in dispute was void ab initio. He further submits that the mutation had been wrongly recorded in favour of the Panchayat on October 19, 1954. 7. At the outset, the Counsel for the petitioner has been confronted with delay in challenging the mutation and the order dated September 10, 1986. The cause of action had arisen to the petitioner on October 19, 1954. He did nothing. In any event, a positive order for eviction of the petitioner was passed on September 10, 1986. The petitioner took no steps to challenge it. The cause of action had arisen to the petitioner on October 19, 1954. He did nothing. In any event, a positive order for eviction of the petitioner was passed on September 10, 1986. The petitioner took no steps to challenge it. In this situation, we cannot allow the petitioner to challenge this order after the lapse of more than 10 years. 8. Mr. Saini contends that the order is void. However, no ground for declaring the order to be a nullity is shown. In any event, even a void order has to be challenged. In the present case, the petitioner having not challenged the order for a long time, he cannot be permitted to challenge it in these proceedings. 9. Faced with the Situation, the counsel for the petitioner submits that even in the execution proceedings, the objection regarding the legality of the order could have been raised and the petitioner has actually raised the argument before the authorities. Thus, the validity of the order should have been gone into. 10. The contention is again misconceived. The claim of the Gram Panchayat was that the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant of the land in dispute. He had illegally raised construction thereon. Thus, he was liable to be evicted. This contention was accepted in the year 1986. Despite the order, the petitioner had failed to vacate the land. Thus, execution proceedings had to be initiated. At the stage of execution proceedings, the evidence had been recorded by the authority. It was admitted by the petitioner that the land in dispute was not allotted to him. He has thus no right or title thereto. It was also established that the land vested in the Gram Panchayat. After examining the evidence adduced by the parties, the Assistant Collector recorded a positive finding that the petitioner was liable to be evicted in execution of the order passed on September 10, 1986. The objections filed by the petitioner were rejected and he was ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute. His appeal and the revision petition have also been rightly dismissed. 11. Mr. Saini also contends that the petitioner has raised a house on the land in dispute. This is the only house the petitioner possesses. He should be allowed to remain in occupation. Even this contention cannot be accepted. His appeal and the revision petition have also been rightly dismissed. 11. Mr. Saini also contends that the petitioner has raised a house on the land in dispute. This is the only house the petitioner possesses. He should be allowed to remain in occupation. Even this contention cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the petitioner has no right in the land on which he has raised this house. His possession being wholly unauthorised, he could not have raised the house. Despite his unauthorised occupation, he has enjoyed the property for a long time in complete violation of law and the directions given by the appropriate authority on September 10, 1986. If illegal occupation of the petitioner is condoned, it would only encourage more persons to violate the law. The other unauthorised occupants will raise similar pleas. We are not inclined to accept the petitioners prayer. 12. Mr. Saini relies upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Jagir Singh v. Gram Panchayat village Mirajpur and others, 1989 PLJ 494 to contend that the land in dispute is not a part of shamlat deh and thus the Panchayat has no right or title therein. 13. We have considered the judgment. Firstly, the finding that the Gram Panchayat was the owner of the land had been recorded in the year 1986. This finding is supported by the entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1954-55. It is too late for the petitioner to contend that he is the owner of the land. Secondly, a perusal of the decision shows that their Lordships have been pleased to take the view that the amendment of Clause 6 of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act was prospective and that the authorities under the Act should examine the entries in the revenue records carefully. There is no quarrel with this proposition. However, in the present case, the authorities have recorded two firm findings of fact namely the petitioner had no right or title to the property and that it vested in the Panchayat. Nothing has been brought to show that these findings are incorrect. 14. Mr. Saini also submits that the construction has been raised by the petitioner in the year 1969-70. Assuming to be so, the petitioner should have raised this contention before the Assistant Collector in the year 1986. He did not do so. Nothing has been brought to show that these findings are incorrect. 14. Mr. Saini also submits that the construction has been raised by the petitioner in the year 1969-70. Assuming to be so, the petitioner should have raised this contention before the Assistant Collector in the year 1986. He did not do so. In any case, if his plea was rejected, he should have challenged that order within a reasonable time. The petitioner failed to take any steps to impugn that order. The order of eviction having attained finality, no ground for interference with the Impugned order is made out. 15. No other point has been raised. 16. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.