IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.685 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 20.07.2011 Gram Panchayat Kokalpur …..Appellant versus Joint Director Panchayat, Punjab and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.C.L.Premy, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. No.1792 of 2011 In view of reasons mentioned in this application, which is accompanied by an affidavit, it is allowed and 82 days delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. LPA No.685 of 2011 This appeal has been filed by the Gram Panchayat against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 14.12.2010. Vide that judgment, CWP No.5354 of 1988 filed by respondent No.3 (Bachan Singh) was allowed and liberty was granted to him to purchase 1 kanal 19 marla of land owned by the Gram Panchayat, which was under his unauthorized occupation. It is apparent from the records that by filing the above said writ petition, the respondent Bachan Singh has laid challenge to an LPA No.685 of 2011(O&M) order dated 22.2.1988, passed by the Joint Director Panchayats exercising the powers of the Commissioner, ordering his ejectment from the land measuring 1 kanal 19 marla, falling in khasra No.67 (1-19). Admittedly, the above said land is shown in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat in the revenue record. The Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) read with Rule 21 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (in short, the Rules) with a prayer that respondent No.3 who is in unauthorized occupation of the above said land, be ejected. The Collector gave ample opportunity to both the parties to produce evidence. Respondent No.3 contended that he was owner of the land in dispute. In the revenue record, except in the copy of the Field Book, which was prepared at the time of consolidation proceedings (this document was not proved on record before the Collector), existence of Haveli constructed by respondent No.3, in the land in dispute, is not shown in any of the Jamabandis. The Collector made spot inspection and found that the Haveli of respondent No.3 exists in 1 kanal 4 marla of land and 15 marla of land is under cultivation. It was ordered that 1 kanal 4 marla of land under construction, be allowed to remain with respondent No.3 and he be ejected from the remaining 15 marla of land under cultivation. The Gram Panchayat went in appeal, which was allowed by respondent No.1 vide order dated 22.2.1988, by observing as under:- “5. I have heard both the parties and also inspected the record produces in the case. According to Zamabandi of the year 1960-61 – 1980-81 the Gram Panchayat is owner of 2 LPA No.685 of 2011(O&M) this land and according to that the type of this land is Banzer Kadeem. Bhagat Singh has shown kasatkar over this land in dispute. According to the revenue record there is no mention of Haveli over this land in dispute. Bachan Singh has not produced any document relating this land. The appellant Sh.Bachan Singh argued that he has brought this land from Mangal Singh but he has not produced any document on record. The construction of Haveli is only according to the spot inspection of this land. The appellant has not been able to prove that if the Haveli has been constructed when it has been constructed. There is no mention of Haveli in the year 1980- 81. The appellant has constructed Haveli over this land after dispute. 6. According to the revenue record this land is of Gram Panchayat. The possession of father of Bhagat Singh is begin only after 1980-81. This possession is unauthorized. He has no right to keep this land in possession. So the appeal of Gram Panchayat is accepted and the appeal of Bachan Singh is rejected. According to this order the order of lower court dated 7.5.86 be taken as modified.” That order was challenged by respondent No.3 in CWP No.5354 of 1988, which was allowed vide the impugned judgment and an option was given to respondent No.3 to purchase the land measuring 1 kanal 19 marla under his possession. Hence, this appeal. Counsel for the appellant, by making reference to the provisions of Section 5 of the Act and Rule 12 of the Rules, contended that 3 LPA No.685 of 2011(O&M) the Gram Panchayat cannot be forced to sell the land in its ownership. Counsel prays that order under challenge be quashed. As per office report, service is complete. None has preferred to put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.3. After hearing counsel for the appellant and the State counsel, we are of the opinion that the impugned order needs to be reversed. As per provisions of Section 5 of the Act, the Gram Panchayat can dispose of its land as per norms prescribed. Rule 12 of the Rules shows the condition in which the Gram Panchayat is competent to sell its property. The situation, which has been depicted in the order under challenge is not envisaged in any of the provisions. It is virtually admitted that the Gram Panchayat is owner of the land in dispute as per the revenue record throughout. The possession of the respondent through his father started only in the year 1981. There is no entry in the revenue record regarding the existence of building in the land in dispute. The Collector, in a very cursory manner, without looking into the entire evidence, even after giving finding that the Gram Panchayat is owner, ordered that land measuring 1 kanal 4 marla with construction be allowed to remain with respondent No.3. The said order has rightly been reversed by the Commissioner on 22.2.1988. The Commissioner has given good reasons to reverse an order passed by the Collector. It has been noted that as per Jamabandi for the years 1960-1961 and 1980-1981, the Gram Panchayat is shown as owner of the land and the land is shown as Banjar Qadim. Father of respondent No.3 Bhagat Singh was shown in possession only in the year 1980-1981. In the revenue record, there is no entry regarding existence of building in the said land. The learned Single Judge without adverting to the findings given by the Commissioner, simply on a prayer made by respondent No.3 to purchase the 4 LPA No.685 of 2011(O&M) land, has given that option to him contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules, as referred to above. The Gram Panchayat is an independent entity and it cannot be forced to sell its land contrary to the provisions of the law. Under the circumstances, we allow this appeal, set aside an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14.12.2010 and restore an order passed by the Commissioner on 22.2.1988. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 20.07.2011 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 5