C.W.P. No.4465 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 10.05.2011 1) C.W.P. No.4465 of 1992 Jagdish ……Petitioner Versus The Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) and others ……Respondents 2) C.W.P. No.4477 of 1992 Surja Ram ……Petitioner Versus Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) and others ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. Sunjeet Singh Bhadana, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Shalini Attri, D.A.G., Haryana. *** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? C.W.P. No.4465 of 1992 -2- 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos.4465 and 4477 of 1992 as both have arisen out of the same occurrence. For the sake of convenience the facts are being extracted from C.W.P. No.4465 of 1992. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the orders Annexures P-3 and P-5 ordering his eviction under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972. The undisputed facts are that there was a long standing dispute between the petitioner and the Gram Panchayat about the land in dispute. The Gram Panchayat had first filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for brevicty ‘the Act’) for eviction of the petitioner while the petitioner filed an application under Section 13-A of the Act claiming that the Gram Panchayat had no right, title or interest in the land in dispute. The application under Section 7 of the Act was clubbed while the application under Section 13-A of the Act. Ultimately, the Panchayat abandoned the remedy under Section 7 of the Act to avail remedy under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972. In the application under Section 13-A of the Act the competent authority held that even though the land in dispute was reserved for common purposes yet it was not shamlat C.W.P. No.4465 of 1992 -3- deh. However, in the application under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 the petitioner was ordered to be evicted. In reply the Gram Panchayat has taken the plea that the land was reserved for the welfare of the villagers and learned for the petitioner has argued that the land was described as Mushtarka Malkan Hasab Nasab Khewat and therefore it was not shamlat deh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the matter of Kala Singh and Commissioner, Hissar Division and others reported in 1984 P.L.J. 169 wherein a Division Bench of this Court in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 has held as under:- “3. The only plea raised before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the land in dispute did not vest in the Gram Panchayat, that the proprietors were the owners of the said land and that this is that land which was reserved for the income of the Gram Panchayat during consolidation proceedings. On the basis of these averments, the learned counsel submits that with regard to such land, no application could lie under Section 7 of the Act. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find considerable force in this contention of the learned counsel. The land admittedly was reserved for the income of the Panchayat during consolidation proceedings. C.W.P. No.4465 of 1992 -4- Such land, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagat Ram and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1967 P.L.R. 287, belongs to the proprietary body and does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. It is not Shamlat Deh as defined in section 2(g) of the Act. The Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 7 of the Act with regard to the land which was reserved for common purposes during consolidation proceedings and pass an order of ejectment of the petitioner. The authorities below have clearly exceeded their jurisdiction and the impugned orders are not legally sustainable.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Roshan @ Roshan Lal and others v. Secretary, Govt. of Haryana Development & Panchayat Deptt. and others reported in AIR 1999 (P&H) 70 wherein the Full Bench of this Court has held that where the land was alleged to be Panchayat land only an application under the Village Common Lands Act would lie and an application under the Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act would not lie. No contrary judgment has been cited before me by learned counsel for the respondents. In the circumstances, it has to be held that the proceedings under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 were illegal. C.W.P. No.4465 of 1992 -5- Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and the impugned orders Annexures P-3 and P-5 are set aside. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 10, 2011 JUDGE ashish