Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2560 (PNJ)

Gram Panchayat Fatehpur v. State of Punjab

2017-10-26

SUDHIR MITTAL, SURYA KANT

body2017
JUDGMENT Mr. Surya Kant, J.:- The petitioner is Gram Panchayat of village Fatehpur, TehsilMukerian, Block Talwara, District Hoshiarpur. It seeks quashing of ordersdated 10.09.2007 and 23.11.2015, Annexures P-2 and P-3 respectively,whereby the DDPO-cum-Collector, Hoshiarpur, dismissed the evictionpetition filed under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands(Regulation) Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the 1961 Act’) and the said order hasbeen further upheld by respondent No.2. 2. The controversy pertains to the land measuring 803 kanals 01marla on which the Gram Panchayat claims to have its ownership. Itaccordingly filed eviction petition alleging that the private respondents are inunauthorised possession of the said land. The authorities below havedismissed the eviction petition on the ground that the private respondents arein possession of the land since 26.01.1950 and that the land was never leasedout by the Gram Panchayat. It has been further held that the land standspartitioned amongst the proprietors way back on 01.03.1976 and thepartition proceedings were never challenged by the Gram Panchayat. 3. On the other hand, the star contention raised on behalf of thepetitioner-Gram Panchayat is that it had earlier filed a petition under Section11 of the 1961 Act seeking declaration of its title qua the suit land. The saidpetition was decreed in favour of the Gram Panchayat and the said order hasattained finality. It is, thus, contended that once the Gram Panchayat hasbeen held to be owner of the land in dispute under Section 11 of the 1961Act, it is fully justified to seek eviction of the private respondents underSection 7 of the Act ibid. 4. Learned counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand,contends that the order passed under Section 11 of the 1961 Act has nobearing in the instant case for the reasons that (i) the said order does notpertain to the land in dispute; and (ii) the said order was passed qua the landmeasuring 232 kanals, whereas the land in dispute is 803 kanals and 01marla. 5. Having pondered over the rival submissions but keeping inview the fact that the effect of order passed under Section 11 of the 1961Act, if any, on the eviction proceedings has not been considered at all by theauthorities below, we are of the view that the matter requires re-consideration by the Collector, Hoshiarpur. 5. Having pondered over the rival submissions but keeping inview the fact that the effect of order passed under Section 11 of the 1961Act, if any, on the eviction proceedings has not been considered at all by theauthorities below, we are of the view that the matter requires re-consideration by the Collector, Hoshiarpur. Suffice to observe that while reconsideringthe matter, the Collector will also be required to find outwhether the order passed under Section 11 of the 1961 Act pertains to thesame land and, if not, does it have any bearing on the instant evictionproceedings. All these issues are essentially questions of fact, which can bedecided by the authorities on appreciation of the material on record. In thisregard, the petitioner-Gram Panchayat shall be required to produce certifiedcopy of the order passed under section 11 of the 1961 Act alongwith detailsof khasra numbers in relation to which such declaration was granted. 6. For the reasons aforestated, the writ petition is allowed in part.The impugned orders dated 10.09.2007 and 23.11.2015 are set aside and thecase is remitted to the Collector, Hoshiarpur for fresh adjudication in thelight of the observations made hereinabove. It is made clear that we havenot made any express view on the merits of the claim made by the parties, who are directed to appear before the Collector, Hoshiarpur on 27.11.2017.