C.W.P. No.4474 of 1985 -1- .IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.4474 of 1985 Date of Decision.04.10.2011 Hazar Singh son of Gghida Singh, resident of village Shatir Wala, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur .....Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat village Shatirwala, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur through its Sarpanch and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Naresh Parbhakar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Pran Nath Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. The writ petition is for a prayer to quash the order of eviction issued under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973. The property is admittedly classified as Shamlet Deh and entered in the revenue records as Mushtrka Malkan. The petition was filed by the Gram Panchayat for eviction pointing out to the fact that under the East Punjab Holding of Land (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, the property come under the control and management of the Panchayat. This property had been leased out periodically at various times and in auction held in the year 1974-75, the petitioner had taken it for one year and had also executed a Pattanama in favour of the Panchayat. He was to pay Rs.710/- per C.W.P. No.4474 of 1985 -2- year but even after the conclusion of the first year, the property continued to be in the possession of the lessee without any consent or permission from Panchayat. The contest in defence by him was that the Gram Panchayat had no claims to ownership of property and the evidence tendered by the petitioner through the Patwari that he had executed on the Pattanama was not true and the signature contained in the document was not his. The document itself had not been proved before the Collector and hence, could not be read into evidence. Referring to the revenue entries in proof of the assertion that the property was under the control of Gram Panchayat, the defence was that the properly was Jumla Malkan and the property did not vest in the Panchayat. The respondent before the Collector also denied the surety bond that was relied on by the Panchayat related to the property in question and that it was with reference to some other land that belonged to the Panchayat. The Collector accepted the contention in defence and dismissed the petition. 2. In an appeal by the Gram Panchayat before the Joint Director, Panchayats, the Appellate Authority held that the Collector had not properly appreciated the evidence of the Sarpanch and Patwari as well as the affidavit relied on by the petitioner said to contain the signature of the tenant that he was holding property only as a tenant. The Appellate Authority took particular note of the fact that the documents had not been objected to at the time when they were tendered in evidence. The appeal was, therefore, accepted and eviction was ordered with the further direction for payment of damages at Rs.2980/- to be paid by the respondents. C.W.P. No.4474 of 1985 -3- 3. While so doing, the authority held that the proprietors of the land had reserved this for common purposes and the control and management of the said property vested in the Panchayat although the ownership had belonged to the proprietors named in the consolidation proceedings. The Appellate Authority was also rejecting the contention that the mere fact that the Gram Panchayat was itself not the proprietor, the property could not be any the less the common purposes land. Referring to Section 2(bb) along with Section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, the property that had been left by the proprietors of the village in the benefit of the village could be ordered to be evicted by virtue of the provisions of the Punjab Gram Panchayat (Common Purposes Land) Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1976 read with provisions of Public Premises Act, 1978. It is this order, which is subject of challenge in writ petition before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Pattanama had not been true; the affidavit said to have been given by him had not been also established; the surety bond for payment of lease had been with reference to some other property. I find each one of the contentions to be untenable. A proof of the document does not require to be made any more than evidence let in by a witness who was acquainted with the facts to give evidence regarding the same. When the Appellate Authority had found that the document had been proved by the Sarpanch and Patwari and the affidavit also contained the signature of the petitioner himself, then the doubt as regards the document would have been justified only if the petitioner was able to C.W.P. No.4474 of 1985 -4- show that his possession could be related to any other transaction of such property. If it is an admitted fact that the property was treated to be for common purposes in the consolidation, it was irrelevant that the property itself was not owned by the Panchayat and that it was only under its control and superintendence. It is perfectly legitimate that any property already stood vested in the Panchayat before consolidation proceedings, could qualify for treatment of the property as being vested in the Panchayat as Shamlet Deh and it would also be possible where at the time of consolidation some common lands are required to be set apart and the proprietors of various parcels of land suffered a cut in their holdings by orders passed by the authorities and duly notified under the consolidation proceedings. Here in the latter situation, the vesting with the Gram Panchayat is not that as a proprietor but it would be for the purpose of supervision and control. Such a property could also be subject of lease and eviction proceedings as brought through the Punjab Gram Panchayat (Common Purposes Land) Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1976. The Act itself was brought about only for the eviction of unauthorized occupants from land reserved for common purposes under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, the management and control of which vested with the Gram Panchayat and for certain incidental matters. Section 2 of Punjab Gram Panchayat (Common Purposes Land) Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1976 defines Common Purposes Land as a land reserved for such a common purposes of a village under Section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. Section 3 provides for action for eviction by C.W.P. No.4474 of 1985 -5- the application of the Punjab Gram Panchayat (Common Purposes Land) Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1973 to common purposes land. The application filed before the Authority was, therefore, perfectly justified and I reject the contentions, which are purely factual that the Pattanama did not refer to the property or that the surety bond executed by the third party related to some other property. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat, it is not shown anywhere by the petitioner that any other property of the Panchayat had been held by the petitioner. The order of eviction made was perfectly justified. 5. The petitioner has had benefit of stay for all these years. The Gram Panchayat shall be at liberty to get the possession of the property pursuant to the order of eviction under the Act and also seek for redetermination of mesne profits in the same proceedings till the date when the possession is actually taken. 6. The writ petition is dismissed affirming the order passed by the Appellate Authority. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 04, 2011 Pankaj*