Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 738 (PNJ)

Sucha Singh v. Joint Director Panchayats, Punjab

2004-07-21

G.S.SINGHVI

body2004
JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J. - This petition is directed against order dated 13.9.1985 (Annexure P2) passed by Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab [exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Punjab Public Premises and Lands (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973]. 2. A perusal of the record shows that Gram Panchayat, Iben Khurd, Tehsil and District Amritsar (respondent No. 3) filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Lands (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short the Act) for eviction of the petitioners, respondent No. 4 and one Pal Singh from the land measuring 8 kanals comprised in khasra No. 12R/19, Khata/Khatoni Nos. 215/318 by claiming that it was owner of the land and they had unauthorisedly occupied the same. District Development and Panchayat Officer, Amritsar (exercising the powers of the Collector under the Act) vide his order dated 31.12.1982 virtually rejected the application of respondent No. 3 by observing that respondents No. 1 to 3 including the petitioners herein were in possession of the disputed land since 1935-36 as per the revenue record and their names continued to appear in the jamabandis. On appeal, Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab reversed the finding recorded by the Collector and ordered the eviction of the petitioners by assigning the following reasons :- "Shri Sucha Singh etc. belong to village Bohar. He cannot have any share in the shamlat land of Gram Panchayat Iben Khurd. His possession on the land in dispute can be said to be old, but he cannot be deemed to be its owner. The land in dispute is owned by the Panchayat. If the present appellants had adduced evidence, the possession of Shri Sucha Singh and others could be said to be under Section 4(3)(ii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, but they had no authority to sell the land. The land in dispute had been in the possession of Shri Mohinder Singh since the year 1974-75. From the above date, Such Singhs possession does not exist over the land in dispute. Therefore, this land automatically vests in the Panchayat." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to affidavit dated 1.4.1986 of Mohinder Singh (petitioner No. 2) and argued that the finding recorded by the Joint Director that respondent No. 3 is the owner of the property is vitiated by an error of law. 4. Therefore, this land automatically vests in the Panchayat." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to affidavit dated 1.4.1986 of Mohinder Singh (petitioner No. 2) and argued that the finding recorded by the Joint Director that respondent No. 3 is the owner of the property is vitiated by an error of law. 4. In my opinion, there is no merit in the argument of the learned counsel and I do not find any justification to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab because the petitioners have not produced any of the documents to which reference has been made in the affidavit of petitioner No. 2 to substantiate their plea that they are entitled to continue to occupy the land in dispute. For the reason stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.