IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10236 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision:10.03.2011 Karnail Singh (deceased) through his LRs and another ....Petitioners versus Gram Panchayat, Baddowal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Jagmohan Singh Chowdhary, Senior Advocate with Mr. Fariad Singh Virk, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Rita Kohli, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the order of eviction which was passed under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act. The petition was filed at the instance of the Gram Panchayat that laid claim to the property on the ground that it was shown as abadi deh bandobasat and that the respondent was trying to make an encroachment and raise a compound wall by the proximity of his own house adjoining the disputed property. The eviction was ordered on the ground that an inspection carried by the Block Development Officer was supposed to have revealed that the property fell within lal lakir and that the encroachment was per se objectionable and liable for removal. Civil Writ Petition No.10236 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - 2. This order is challenged on the ground that a shamlat deh that vests in a panchayat by virtue of the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 excludes from the definition of shamlat deh mentioned in Section 2(g)(1), abadi deh. If there is any encroachment in any property which would fall within the categories of properties that would become vested in panchayat, definitely there is a case made for an ejectment. The other classes of properties which will fall within shamlat deh are, as the definition itself includes streets, lanes, playgrounds, drinking wells, or ponds within 'abadi deh or 'gora deh' (Section 2(g)(4)). 3. Before the action could lawfully be taken for an ejectment, the character of property, as such lane, shall be established. It cannot be merely a matter of oral assertion by a village official. I would understand that any reference to a communal character of property or a common use that the villages enjoy through lane or street would be entered in the revenue record and drawn up by appropriate field measurement books. Even while upholding the claim of the petitioners that the panchayat could not have had the benefit of an order of eviction, I will reserve to the panchayat, however, a right to establish that any portion of property in which the petitioners are residing or have put any form of construction to be shown that it falls within any of the categories that come under the definition of shamlat deh. This order protecting his continuance in possession cannot, however, prejudice the panchayat from ascertaining its right over the property through appropriate evidence in any independent proceedings. The impugned order of eviction is quashed Civil Writ Petition No.10236 of 1989 (O&M) - 3 - and the writ petition is allowed, but reserving, however, the right to the panchayat to take action for eviction in accordance with law on appropriate documentary proof that the property is vested in the gram panchayat. 4. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 10.03.2011 sanjeev