C.W.P. No.12545 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.12545 of 1992 Date of Decision : 02.05.2011 Usman …Petitioner Versus The Gram Panchayat and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate for the respondent No.1-Gram Panchayat. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) By this petition the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 21.04.1989 and 04.06.1992. By the first order the application under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act (for brevity ‘the Act’) filed by the respondent No.1 was allowed and by the second order an appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The undisputed facts are that the land in dispute was mentioned as JUMLA MUSTARKA MALKAN WA DIGAR C.W.P. No.12545 of 1992 -2- HAQDARAN and the petitioner was shown as Pattedar thereon. Originally the Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act for eviction of the petitioner. The competent authority i.e. the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Ferozepur Jhirka held that the land in dispute was not reserved for common purposes or for panchayat’s income and dismissed the same. That order was allowed to become final. Thereafter in the year 1988 the Gram panchayat initiated the proceedings under the Act. This application was allowed on the basis that the disputed property came under the definition of common purposes and also under the definition of the Act. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed primarily on the ground that during this interregnum Section 2(G)(6) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act had been amended and by order of the Commissioner, Gurgaon Circle dated 04.06.1992 it was directed that the land be now transferred in the name of the Panchayat by re- mutation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made three fold arguments. First argument is that once the Panchayat had permitted the finding with regard to the nature of land being not reserved for common purposes to become final it could not turn around and file a separate case. The second argument is that in any case the Act would not be applicable. While relying upon a Full Bench in the C.W.P. No.12545 of 1992 -3- matter of Jai Singh and others v. State of Haryana reported in PLR Vol.CXXXIV-(2003-2) 658 the third argument is that the mutation on the basis of the afore-mentioned amendment would stand cancelled. Learned counsel for the respondent-Gram Panchayat has not been able to cite any judgment contrary to the propositions of law stated above. In the circumstances, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders Annexures P-3 and P-4 are set aside. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 02, 2011 JUDGE ashish