C.W.P. No. 16775 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 16775 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 Girdhari Lal .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Petitioner Girdhari Lal has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 25.4.1989 passed by the Collector, whereby the application filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') for declaring the Gram Panchayat owner of the land measuring 11 kanals 14 marlas and for possession of the said land, which is alleged to have been in illegal possession of the petitioner, was allowed. Vide said order, the respondent Gram Panchayat was held to be owner of the disputed land and the possession of the petitioner was found to be illegal and unauthorised, therefore, the petitioner was directed to remove his illegal possession from the disputed land; and order dated 24.6.2011 vide which his appeal against C.W.P. No. 16775 of 2011 -2- the said order has also been dismissed. Both these orders are under challenge in this petition. In this case, the authorities below have recorded a finding of fact that in the Jamabandi for the year 1965-66 the land was recorded in the name of Jumla Mustarka Malkan and the same was used for the common purposes of the village as playground. Such land falls under the definition of Shamilat deh under Section 2(g) of the Act, the mutation of this land was sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat in the year 1975. While referring to the Jamabandi for the year 1981-82, it was held that petitioner Girdhari Lal is in illegal possession of 4 marlas of land, which was 50/234 share owned by the Gram Panchayat, it was ordered that the possession of same be handed over to Gram Panchayat. Before the Appellate Authority, it was argued by the petitioner that he was proceeded against ex-parte before the Collector, therefore, he could not produce the evidence in his support. This contention of the petitioner was rejected by the Appellate Authority while observing that at one stage the petitioner came present before the Collector on 30.6.1988. Thereafter the case was adjourned for his reply and evidence, but when the petitioner did not come present, he was proceeded against ex-parte. Therefore, the argument of the petitioner cannot be accepted that the Collector did not give him an opportunity to lead evidence and make his submissions. It has been further stated that even thereafter the case was adjourned for several times, but the petitioner did not come present, and ultimately the ex-parte order was to be passed against him. Before this Court, learned counsel could not controvert the C.W.P. No. 16775 of 2011 -3- aforesaid factual position, however, he has argued that in the title suit filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 11 of the Act, no eviction order could have been passed without filing an application under Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Collector to the extent the petitioner was directed to deliver the possession, is without jurisdiction. We do not find any force in this contention of the learned counsel. The suit/petition filed by the Gram Panchayat was for declaration and possession. Such suit could be filed under Section 11 of the Act. After finding the Gram Panchayat as owner of the disputed land and finding the possession of the petitioner as illegal and unauthorised, the Collector has also granted the relief of possession to the Gram Panchayat. Merely because it has been observed that the petitioner will remove illegal possession of the disputed land, it cannot be taken that the order of the Collector is without jurisdiction. In the suit filed by the Gram Panchayat, two-fold relief was sought, firstly, to declare the ownership of the Gram Panchayat on the disputed land; and secondly, Gram Panchayat be given possession of the disputed land, if it is found to be owner of the same and possession of the petitioner is found to be illegal and unauthorised. The Collector has granted both the reliefs to the Gram Panchayat, therefore, it cannot be said at all that the order of the Collector directing the petitioner to deliver the possession of the disputed land to the Gram Panchayat, is without jurisdiction. When the Gram Panchayat in the declaration suit claimed possession and if the said suit is decreed with the relief of possession, then the decree for possession can be executed by the Gram Panchayat, and there is no need for the Gram Panchayat for filing a separate application under Section 7 of the C.W.P. No. 16775 of 2011 -4- Act. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner titled as Jarnail Singh and others Vs. Gram panchayat, Mahan Singh Wala and others, 2009(4) RCR (Civil) 478, in support of the plea that the Gram Panchayat is required to file two separate petitions for the relief of ownership and possession, one under Section 7 and the other under Section 11 of the Act, is not applicable at all in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case the Gram Panchayat only filed declaration suit and not the suit for possession, but in the present case the Gram Panchayat sought both the reliefs. In our opinion, in the present case, the order of the Collector directing the petitioner to hand over the illegal possession of the disputed land to the Gram Panchayat, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Thus, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the authorities. No merits. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE September 22, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) vkg JUDGE