Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1462 (PNJ)

Charanji Lal v. Assistant Collector 1st Grade

2013-11-07

GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA, JASBIR SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to an order dated 20.03.1989 vide which, application filed by respondent No. 4 was allowed, ordering ejectment of the petitioner from land measuring 106 square yards. In that land, petitioner had raised his construction. Further challenge has been laid to an order dated 10.05.1990 dismissing appeal filed by the petitioner against the above order. As per facts on record, respondent No. 4 filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short the Act) seeking ejectment of the petitioner from portion of the land falling in plot No. 723 measuring 2 kanals and 5 marlas. It was stated that during consolidation proceedings, this land was allotted to him and other land owners for the purpose of manure pits. It was further stated that the petitioner, who was then Member Panchayat, has built up his house in the land, which was reserved for a specific purpose during consolidation proceedings. After notice, reply was filed by the petitioner wherein, it was stated that the disputed land was reserved as manure pits for the non-proprietors. It was further stated that the land is in possession of non-proprietors as its owners and as per their understanding, they have taken possession of specific portions of land out of land measuring 2 kanals and 5 marlas. It was said that the land in possession of the petitioner is less than his share in the total land allotted to the non-proprietors. During pendency of those proceedings, demarcation was got done at the spot and it transpired that the petitioner was in unauthorized possession of land earmarked for manure pits during consolidation proceedings. On objection raised, second demarcation report was called. During pendency of the proceedings, petitioner filed an application under Section 13A of the Act claiming ownership in the land in dispute. On account of that, proceedings under Section 7 of the Act were stayed on 25.09.1985. His application under Section 13A of the Act was dismissed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Mohindergarh on 22.12.1986. The petitioner also failed in appeal, which was dismissed on 08.05.1987. Those orders have become final. 2. Thereafter, matter was again taken up for ejectment of the petitioner. His application under Section 13A of the Act was dismissed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Mohindergarh on 22.12.1986. The petitioner also failed in appeal, which was dismissed on 08.05.1987. Those orders have become final. 2. Thereafter, matter was again taken up for ejectment of the petitioner. After noting above facts and looking at the demarcation reports and other documents on record, Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Mohindergarh ordered his ejectment on 20.03.1989. It was observed as under:- "After hearing arguments of both the parties and perusing the written arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent and the file of this case, I have come to the conclusion that the Respondent is in illegal possession of the land in excess of his share of 4 marlas although the Panchayat has no concern with the use of Khasra No. 723. This land is owned by the Panchayat and is reserved for the Makbuja Gair Malkan (non-proprietors in possession) Dhani Thakran). It was carved out in accordance with partition of Abadi of non-proprietors (Dhani Thakran) village Patharva, copy whereof is forthcoming on the settlement scheme, which is present on the file of this case. Its use is to be made as per 8 shares. The respondent has been in illegal possession and trespass over the land in khasra No. 723 in excess of his own share of 4 marlas, which share includes the share of his two brothers and father. Hence, the respondent is immediately dispossessed of 106 square yards of land in Khasra No. 723. This area measuring 106 square yards be given to Gram Panchayat Patharva so that it may partition to the remaining non-proprietors for manure-pits." 3. It was specifically noticed that the petitioner is in possession of excess land to his share. The said land was reserved for manure pits during consolidation proceedings. It was also noted that the land measuring 4 marlas falls to the share of the petitioner including his two brothers and his father. He was ordered to be ejected from 106 square yards of excess land with him. Petitioner went in appeal, which was dismissed on 10.05.1990. Findings given by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Mohindergarh on 20.03.1989 were affirmed. It was reiterated that the land was earmarked for manure pits during consolidation proceedings whereupon the petitioner unauthorizedly had raised construction. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Petitioner went in appeal, which was dismissed on 10.05.1990. Findings given by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Mohindergarh on 20.03.1989 were affirmed. It was reiterated that the land was earmarked for manure pits during consolidation proceedings whereupon the petitioner unauthorizedly had raised construction. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the findings given against the petitioner vide orders dated 22.12.1986 and 08.05.1987 were not correct. As per the provisions of the Act i.e. Section 2(g) Exception No. (vi) and Section 4(1)(b), the land in dispute shall not vest in the Gram Panchayat. 5. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that during pendency of proceedings under Section 7 of the Act against the petitioner, he had filed an application under Section 13A of the Act claiming ownership in the land in dispute. After contest with the Gram Panchayat, his application was dismissed on 22.12.1986. It was held that the land in dispute was reserved for manure pits for the non-proprietors and it vests in the Gram Panchayat. It was further observed that any of the non-proprietors can use the said land for the purpose for which it was earmarked. To the said user. Gram Panchayat cannot raise any objection. Petitioner went in appeal, which was dismissed 08.05.1987 by observing as under:- "After hearing the arguments and perusing the record, I have found that the disputed land according to Register P-2 was reserved for manure-pits of non-proprietors under the consolidation scheme and as such it vests in the Gram Panchayat. The claim of the appellant that they may be declared as owner of this land has no force. It is correct that the non-proprietors which include Harijans also can use this land for the purpose of manure-pits. In this use the Gram Panchayat shall not interfere but its ownership cannot be vested in the non-proprietors. The ownership rights of this land shall stand vested in the Gram Panchayat although it shall have no concern whatsoever with its use." It was noted by the Collector that as per the consolidation scheme, land was reserved for a specific common purpose. As such, it vests in the Gram Panchayat. So far as user is concerned, Gram Panchayat cannot interfere in the same. All the non-proprietors can use the same manure pits. As such, it vests in the Gram Panchayat. So far as user is concerned, Gram Panchayat cannot interfere in the same. All the non-proprietors can use the same manure pits. That finding has not been challenged in any higher Forum and as such, has become final. In the face of that finding, petitioner cannot say that, it was wrongly relied upon when ejectment order was passed against him. It is also on record that the petitioner was a Panch of the Gram Panchayat when he entered in unauthorized occupation of the common purpose land. Panch of a Gram Panchayat is custodian of the Panchayat land. He is not supposed to usurp the land meant for common purposes. The petitioner showed his high handedness and acted contrary to the duties cast upon him. At the time of consolidation proceedings, the land in dispute was reserved for common purposes i.e. manure pits. All the non-proprietors were authorized to use the same for the said purpose. The petitioner by raising construction thereupon, defeated the purpose for which land was kept separate during consolidation proceedings. To us, it appears that the petitioner's ejectment was needed not only from 106 square yards of land, but from remaining portion of the land also where he has raised construction because once land has been earmarked for a specific common purpose, it cannot be used for any other purpose. 4 Marias of land which was in unauthorized possession of the petitioner was not touched by the authorities below. As writ petition has not been filed by the Gram Panchayat claiming that relief, we are not passing any order in that regard. However, we make it clear that in future if any person wishes to file an application under Section 7 of the Act for ejectment of the petitioner from that portion of the land, the orders under challenge shall not affect right of that right holder. Petition dismissed.