CWP No. 2222 of 1992 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2222 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision 7.3.2011 Ram Sarup ……petitioner Vs. The Collector, Jind and ors ……respondents CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain and Mr. Sunil Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Poonia, Addl. AG, Haryana. Hemant Gupta, J Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by learned Collector on 21.1.1992, whereby the eviction proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), was dismissed. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 7 of the Act alleging encroachment by respondent-Dharam Pal upon the thoroughfare used for the common purpose and has constructed Chabutra measuring 26’x56’ in front of his house. Therefore, respondents be evicted from the said land. Learned Assistant Collector, Ist. Grade, Jind allowed the said petition on 23.10.1990. In appeal against the said order, learned Collector on 13.2.1991 sent the matter to Additional Deputy Commissioner with the direction that he should visit the spot in presence of both the parties and after being satisfied whether the land 1 CWP No. 2222 of 1992 (O&M) in dispute falls in Shamlat Deh, pass an order of removal of unauthorized possession. In pursuance of the order dated 13.2.1991, learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jind inspected the spot and submitted his report on 30.3.1991 finding that the respondent- Dharam Pal is in unauthorized occupation of land measuring 26’ x 56’ and the file was ordered to be sent to the learned Collector. The operative part of the order reads as under: - At the spot this fact is also established that Ram Sarup son of Bhagwan has also encroached upon considerable area by constructing 4 walls on the share-aam chowk. The villagers also raised objection regarding this and prayed that it be got removed and accordingly Dharam Pal son of Kehar Singh appellant was directed to vacate the unauthorized occupation of 26’ x 56’ by removing the constructed four walls and tap on the share-aam chowk. In case, if he does not do it Gram Panchayat will be at liberty to get the same removed with the help of police and the damages would be recovered from the appellant. The case of Ram Sarup, respondent is pending in the court, therefore, against him proceedings would be taken after decision of that case. File after compliance be sent back to the Collector with reference to his order dated 13.2.1991. Subsequent to the order, learned Collector passed an order impugned in the present writ petition on 21.1.1992 holding that Dharam Pal is not in unauthorized possession of the land. The said finding was recorded in pursuance of the measurements taken by learned Collector in the presence of numerous parties and Sarpanch. The sole argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 21.1.1992 (Annexure P-4) tantamount to review of the order passed by learned Additioinal Deputy Commissioner, Jind exercising the powers of learned Collector on 30.3.1991 and that the learned Collector has no power to review the earlier order passed, therefore, the order dated 21.1.1992 (Annexure P-4) is without jurisdiction. 2 CWP No. 2222 of 1992 (O&M) I do not find any merit in the said argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Collector vide the order dated 13.2.1991 directed the Additional Deputy Commissioner to inspect the spot in presence of the parties and for removal of unauthorized occupation in pursuance of such report. Thereafter, learned Additional Deputy Commissioner on 30.3.1991 has found Dharam Pal to be in unauthorized occupation and ordered the file be sent back to the learned Collector with reference to the order dated 13.2.1991. Such proceedings show that the order of learned Collector dated 13.2.1991 was in fact an order, asking for report from the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner has sent its report on 30.3.1991 and thereafter the learned Collector has passed an order dated 21.1.1992 (Annexure P4). The order passed by learned Collector dated 21.1.1992 (Annexure P-4) does not amount to review of the order passed by learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jind on 30.3.1991 as the said order is in the nature of report submitted to the learned Collector for further action. In view thereof, the present writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner or to the affected parties to seek recourse for decision on the question of title over the land in dispute from the Competent Court of Law. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 7.3.2011 Preeti 3