Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 352 (PNJ)

Baldev Krishan v. State of Punjab

2013-03-14

Rajive Bhalla, Rekha Mittal

body2013
JUDGMENT Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J.:- The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing orders dated 17.09.2004 (Annexure P21), passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Punjab (exercising powers of Commissioner), 29.10.2001 (Annexure P20), passed by the Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Punjab (exercising powers of Collector), letter dated 08.01.2010 (Annexure P22), letter dated 11.10.2010 (Annexure P23), issued by the Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala (exercising powers of Collector) and notice/warrant of possession dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure P24). 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 5-Gram Panchayat of village Allowal, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, filed an application, under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation ) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the 1961 Act’) seeking ejectment of the petitioner, his father (Bhisham Chand) and his brother (Gopal Krishan alias Kala) which was disposed of by the Collector, vide order dated 29.10.2001 by directing them to pay the value of constructed area, measuring 89’x2’x40’x3' to the Gram Panchayat, as per Collector rate. The order passed by the Collector in regard to deposit of the value of constructed area was set aside by the Appellate Authority i.e. Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Punjab, without providing an opportunity of being heard. It is argued that after a lapse of more than 5 years, respondent No. 4, issued a notice for delivery of possession to the petitioner, Bhisham Chand and Gopal Krishan. The petitioner came to know about order dated 17.09.2004 only when a notice has been issued in the year 2010, calling upon him to deliver possession of the site in dispute. It is further argued that the notice for delivery of possession has been issued only against the petitioner and his family members when otherwise, respondent Nos. 6 to 87 have also constructed their houses on shamilat deh, but the Gram Panchayat neither initiated any proceedings for their ejectment nor issued any notice to them to deliver possession of the site underneath their houses. It is further argued that shamilat deh land has been allotted to the private respondents as well as to the petitioner being poor and homeless persons for their rehabilitation in the village and the allottees were conferred the right to raise construction of their houses, the Gram Panchayat has no right, title or authority to seek ejectment of the petitioner. 3. 3. Counsel for contesting respondent - Gram Panchayat submits that the Gram Panchayat preferred an appeal against order dated 29.10.2001 in so far as allowing the petitioner, his father and brother, to pay the value of constructed area to Gram Panchayat. The appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat was allowed. Bhisham Chand, Gopal Krishan and Baldev Krishan (petitioner herein) were ordered to be dispossessed from the land, in dispute. Bhisham Chand, father of the present petitioner, challenged order dated 17.09.2004, by filing a writ petition, which was dismissed on 10.03.2009. Bhisham Chand carried the matter in appeal, which was also dismissed by a Division bench on 08.10.2009. As Bhisham Chand, father of the petitioner, remained unsuccessful in getting any relief from this Court, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner in order to prolong the proceedings for delivery of possession and to retain possession of shamilat deh, land without any right, title or authority. He has strenuously argued that the present petition is nothing, but an abuse and misuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. 4. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders, notices and records as well. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has not denied that the Gram Panchayat filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner, his father (Bhisham Chand) and his brother (Gopal Krishan). The Collector, after hearing the parties and consideration of the matter, allowed the claim of the Gram Panchayat in regard to vacant land, measuring 89’x2' x 40’x3' but permitted the respondents therein, including the present petitioner Baldev Krishan, to pay the price of constructed area, measuring 89’x2 ‘x 40’x3'. A relevant extract from the order of the Collector, reads as follows:- “After hearing the arguments of the counsels of both the parties, perusing the produced records/documents and with the consent of both the parties and after inspecting site/spot of the above mentioned land, I reached to the conclusion that the respondents party have made the construction at the area measuring 89’x2' x 40’x3' as per map Ex.R-1 produced by them, which is old . Therefore, except the land shown in the map of above mentioned land, respondents are dispossessed from the vacant land measuring 89’x2' x 40’x3' lying towards North. Therefore, except the land shown in the map of above mentioned land, respondents are dispossessed from the vacant land measuring 89’x2' x 40’x3' lying towards North. It is also ordered that the respondents will pay the value of constructed area to Gram Panchayat as per Collector rate.” 6. The Gram Panchayat preferred an appeal against the order of the Collector, impleading Bhisham Chand, Gopal Krishan and Baldev Krishan as respondents. Bhisham Chand, father of the petitioner, admittedly, contested the appeal. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal thereby setting aside the order of the Collector, permitting Bhisham Chand and others to pay the value of constructed area to Gram Panchayat, ordered their dispossession from the land, in dispute. Counsel for the petitioner has not denied that Bhisham Chand challenged the order of the Appellate Authority, dated 17.09.2004, by way of writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed on 10.03.2009 and an appeal preferred by Bhisham Chand against order dated 10.03.2009 was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 08.10.2009. It appears that as Bhisham Chand, father of the petitioner, remained unsuccessful in the litigation, initiated by him, to protect illegal and unauthorized possession of the land, in dispute by him and his sons, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the same order dated 17.09.2004, which has already been scrutinized by this Court and held to be legal and valid and persons in unauthorized occupation of the Panchayat land, liable to be evicted therefrom. 7. The petitioner has raised a plea that the land, in dispute, was allotted to the petitioner, his father and his brother. A perusal of order passed by the Collector would reveal that Bhisham Chand, father of the petitioner appeared as a witness to rebut the case of the Gram Panchayat and to assert his right to retain possession of the land, in dispute. No order in regard to allotment of the land, in dispute, in favour of petitioner and others was produced before the Collector. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not adduced any evidence or produced any document to substantiate his plea that the land, in dispute, was allotted to them by the Gram Panchayat in execution of any scheme prepared by the State Government. The petitioner has miserably failed to prove his right, title or interest in the land, in dispute, to retain its possession. The petitioner has miserably failed to prove his right, title or interest in the land, in dispute, to retain its possession. The plea of the petitioner that the private respondents are also in unauthorized possession of Gram Panchayat land, in our considered opinion does not create any right, title or interest in favour of the petitioner, to perpetuate his illegal possession of the land, in dispute. 8. As eviction proceedings have already attained finality, respondent No. 4 in order to carry out execution of the eviction order has rightly issued a notice, calling upon the petitioner to deliver possession of the land, in dispute, in his unauthorized possession. 9. The eviction proceedings culminated in order dated 17.09.2004. The petitioner has filed the writ petition in the year 2010. No meaningful arguments have been advanced by counsel for the petitioner to explain inordinate delay in approaching the Court. Father of the petitioner i.e. Bhisham Chand, has already lost the legal battle in respect of the same proceedings and orders of eviction. It is very hard to believe that the petitioner did not have the knowledge of the order of the Appellate Authority. The petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 10. In view of what has been discussed here-in-above, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. --------0.B.S.0------------