Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 926 (PNJ)

Mam Chand v. Gram Panchayat Kheri Matarwa

2004-08-20

AJAY K.MITTAL

body2004
JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - The petitioners, who are residents of village Kheri Matarwa, Tehsil Kaithal, District Kurukshetra have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 2.5.1984 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kaithal (Annexure P-3) and order dated 15.6.1984 passed by the Collector, Kurukshetra (Annexure P-5) directing ejectment of the petitioners from the land in question. 2. Gram Panchayat Kheri Matarwa filed an application under Section 7(1) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (for short the Act) for ejectment of the applications from land measuring 1 Kanal, bearing Khewat No. 64, Khatauni No. 143 Min., which is a gair-mumkin Rasta No. 132, situated in the village Kheri Matarwa, Tehsil Kaithal, on the ground that their possession over the said land was unauthorised. The petitioners contested the application. It was pleaded that the Gram Panchayat was not the owner of the land and in fact, the petitioners were the owners in possession and they had constructed permanent structure on the land for the last more than 30 years. The Assistant Collector vide order Annexure P-3 decided the case against the petitioners holding that they are not the owners of the land as claimed by them and ordered the ejectment of the petitioners. The petitioners aggrieved against order Annexure P-3 preferred appeal before Collector who also dismissed the same vide order Annexure P-5. The aforesaid two orders i.e. Annexures P-3 and P-5 are under challenge in this writ petition. 3. It has been pleaded by the counsel for the petitioners that the question of ownership/title had been raised in the application and, therefore, the Assistant Collector who has decided the case by order dated 2.5.1984 (Annexure P-3) holding that the petitioners were not owners of the land, had no jurisdiction to go into the question of ownership. Similarly, the Collector, who decided the matter and dismissed the appeal by order (Annexure P-5), had no jurisdiction to go into the question of title. The petitioners placed reliance on Tara Chand and Fateh Singh v. Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha of Village Atail and others, 1979 PLJ 1 for the aforesaid plea. 4. The counsel for respondent No. 1 argued that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector were legal. The petitioners placed reliance on Tara Chand and Fateh Singh v. Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha of Village Atail and others, 1979 PLJ 1 for the aforesaid plea. 4. The counsel for respondent No. 1 argued that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector were legal. It was stated that the order of ejectment was rightly passed on the basis of evidence and revenue record. The petitioners have not been able to prima facie establish that they were owners in any manner and, therefore, their ejectment has been directly ordered under Section 7 of the Act. The authorities were not required to convert themselves into a Tribunal under Section 13-A of the Act. The reliance has been placed on Chander Prakash and another v. Gram Panchayat, Ranwar and another, 1989 PLJ 21 and Ratti Ram and another v. State of Haryana and others, 1997(1) PLJ 499. 5. The petitioners filed replication pleading therein that the question of their possession over the land in question has already been settled through a civil court decree dated 28.4.1987, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-6. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. The sole question raised in this petition for consideration by this Court is whether, the revenue authorities in exercise of their powers under the Act could go into the question of title. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition that in case question of title is raised, then appropriate course for the Assistant Collector First Grade was either to convert himself into a Tribunal under Section 13-A of the Act or ask the parties who were raising the question of title to file appropriate application under Section 13-A. This procedure is, however, to be adopted by the Assistant Collector only when there is a question of title raised and a prima facie case is made out in support thereof that question of title in fact is involved, as is provided in Section 7(1) of the Act. It is not in each and every case where the title of panchayat land is disputed under Section 7 of the Act that the Assistant Collector Grade I has to adjudicate the question under Section 13-A. In Chander Prakashs case (supra), a single Bench of this Court while dealing with similar controversy, held as under :- ".... It is not in each and every case where the title of panchayat land is disputed under Section 7 of the Act that the Assistant Collector Grade I has to adjudicate the question under Section 13-A. In Chander Prakashs case (supra), a single Bench of this Court while dealing with similar controversy, held as under :- ".... The proviso to Section 7 lays down in no uncertain terms that it is only when it is proved prima facie that there is a question of title that the Assistant Collector is required to decide the same under Section 13-A of the Act. This means that the Assistant Collector who is proceeding with the application under Section 7 of the Act was to be satisfied that the title of the petitioners was prima facie proved and the question in this regard required to be adjudicated upon. It is not in each and every case where the title of the Panchayat to the land in dispute is called in question during the course of proceedings under Section 7 of the Act that the Assistant Collector is to stay his hands so as to adjudicate the question under Section 13-A of the Act...." 7. To the same effect is the judgment of single Bench of this Court in Ratti Ram and another v. State of Haryana and others, 1997(1) PLJ 499. A bare perusal of the order Annexure P-3 would go to show that the Assistant Collector has not exceeded its jurisdiction. The petitioners have to been able to show that they were in possession of the land in dispute for the last over 30 years. No document or other evidence had been produced to substantiate their claim. In the Jamabandi Exhibit A-1 relating to the year 1975-76, which was produced, the owner of the land is shown to be Gram Panchayat and the land is public rasta which was left for Gairmumkin Rasta. Further the petitioners have placed reliance on judgment of the Civil Court Annexure P-6. Firstly, the Gram Panchayat was not a party to the said litigation and moreover, a perusal of the same does not show that the civil court anywhere has returned the finding that the petitioners had become owner of the property in question. Further the petitioners have placed reliance on judgment of the Civil Court Annexure P-6. Firstly, the Gram Panchayat was not a party to the said litigation and moreover, a perusal of the same does not show that the civil court anywhere has returned the finding that the petitioners had become owner of the property in question. It is, therefore, held that since no prima facie evidence having been produced by the petitioners to substantiate their claim that question of title is involved, the Assistant Collector/Collector was not required to stay the proceedings under Section 7 and decide the question of title by constituting himself in a Tribunal under Section 13-A of the Act. Mere bald assertion of the petitioners disputing the title of the Gram Panchayat would not entitle them to get stay of proceedings under Section 7 of the Act. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade as well as the Collector had rightly proceeded with the proceedings under Section 7 and ordered ejectment of the petitioners. No illegality or infirmity can be found with the aforesaid orders (Annexures P-3) and P-5). Finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.