Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 88 (PNJ)

Amarjit Singh v. Joint Development Commissioner

2002-01-16

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, G.S.SINGHVI

body2002
JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J. - This is a petition for quashing orders dated August 3, 1998 and September 17, 1999 passed by the Collector-cum-District Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala and the Commissioner respectively under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Gram Panchayat, Dudar filed an application dated February 2, 1981 under Section 7 of the Act for eviction of the petitioner from 12 Kanals 10 Marlas of the land situated in Village Dudar. In the application, it was averred that the land in question vests in it and Amarjit Singh had unauthorisedly occupied the same. The petitioner controverted the averments contained in the application and claimed that he was owner of the land in dispute. An alternative plea taken by him was that he was tenant under the Gram Panchayat. 3. After hearing the parties, the Collector-cum-District Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala allowed the application of the Gram Panchayat vide order dated March 31, 1982 and ordered the eviction of the petitioner. Appeal filed by his was dismissed by the Commissioner vide his order dated May 27, 1983. 4. Petitioner challenged his threatened eviction in Civil Writ Petition No. 6051 of 1983, which was allowed by a Division Bench and the case was remanded to the Collector with the direction to decide the application of the Gram Panchayat afresh and also decide the claim of title set up by the petitioner in terms of Section 11 of the Act read with Rule 21A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Rules. 5. Thereafter, petitioner filed petition under Section 11 of the Act for declaring himself as the owner of the land in dispute. The same was dismissed by the Collector-cum-District Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala vide order Annexure P/6 dated 3.8.1998. Appeal filed against that order was dismissed by Commissioner vide order Annexure P/8 dated 17.9.1999. 6. Shri Arun Sanghi relied on the entries recorded in the Jamabandi for the years 1950-51, 1956-57, 1982-83 and 1987-88 and Khasra girdwari for the years 1991-92 to 1994-95 (Exhibits P/1 to P/6) to show that the land in dispute was in the possession of the petitioner and argued that the Gram Panchayat has no locus to seek his eviction. 6. Shri Arun Sanghi relied on the entries recorded in the Jamabandi for the years 1950-51, 1956-57, 1982-83 and 1987-88 and Khasra girdwari for the years 1991-92 to 1994-95 (Exhibits P/1 to P/6) to show that the land in dispute was in the possession of the petitioner and argued that the Gram Panchayat has no locus to seek his eviction. Learned counsel then argued that the findings recorded by the Collector-cum-District Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala and the Commissioner should be declared as vitiated by an error of law because both the authorities failed to properly appreciate the entries recorded in revenue records. 7. Shri G.S. Dhillon supported the impugned orders and argued that concurrent findings recorded by the two authorities on the issue of unlawful possession of the Gram Panchayat land by the petitioner should not be interfered by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. We have thoughtfully considered the respective submissions. A perusal of the impugned orders shows that the Collector-cum-District Development and Panchayat Officer and the Commissioner have concurrently held that the petitioner had occupied the land in dispute in the year 1982-83 and not prior to that year. They further held that the petitioner had failed to explain as to how he came in possession of the land in question. Even before this Court no evidence has been produced to prove that the petitioner was in possession of the land in the year 1950-51 or at any time prior to 1982-83. Therefore, we do not find any reason to upset the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below. 9. The Collector-cum-District Development and Panchayat Officer further held that land in dispute is Shamlat Deh and was under the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel has not been able to put forward any convincing argument, which may justify the reversal of this finding. 10. The petitioners plea that the land in dispute was allotted to him at the time of consolidation is also devoid of any merit. He could not produce any evidence pertaining to consolidation from which new numbers could be tallied with old numbers. Therefore, both, the Collector as well as the Commissioner, have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner that he is owner of the land in dispute. He could not produce any evidence pertaining to consolidation from which new numbers could be tallied with old numbers. Therefore, both, the Collector as well as the Commissioner, have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner that he is owner of the land in dispute. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the impugned orders do no suffer from any error of law. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.