CWP No.16355 of 1990 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16355 of 1990 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.05.2011 Richhpal ... Petitioner Versus The District Collector, Gurgaon and Ors. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Goripuria, DAG, Haryana, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Rajat Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No.3. None for respondents No.4 to 7. ***** 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. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the order directing summary eviction under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act as application to Haryana (for brevity, 'the Act') of the property in khasra No.32/20 and admittedly it was a banjar quadim land. 2. A petition has been filed by a villager seeking ejectment under Section 7 of the Act to which the contention in defence by the petitioner was that it had been in the occupation of the petitioner as a house site on which he put up a construction and there was also a Civil court decree which he had CWP No.16355 of 1990 (O&M) -2- secured against the Gram Panchayat in the year 1952. It was also relying on the fact that in the jamabandi for the year 1946-1947, the property have been shown as banjar quadim but subsequently in the year 1956-1957, the said property was shown as khasra No.32/20 and also referred to the property as “swak 531 min and 534 min”. The reliance on jamabandi for the year 1956 was only to correlate the Civil court decree which had I made a reference to khasra No.534 as being in the possession of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that as per the definition of shamilat deh every property i.e. banjar quadim, does not merely become vested with the Gram Panchayat but Clause 5 under Section 2 (g) reads us “lands in any village described as banjar quadim and used for common purposes of the village according to revenue record”. 4. Learned counsel refers to Full Bench ruling of this Court in “Gram Panchayat Sadhraur v. Baldev Singh and others, 1977 PLJ 276” wherein it has been held that it shall not be sufficient to show that a property is banjar quadim in order that it is proved as shamilat deh but it must be established that as per entries in the revenue record, the same is being used for “common purposes of the village”. The Full Bench underscored that unless this conclusion was reached as banjar quadim land, it could not be held to vest in Gram Panchayat. The attempt of the petitioner, therefore, was to show that without any proof by the Panchayat that the property was used for common purposes, summary ejectment was not possible. The counsel would contend that the Panchayat itself had not initiated action for ejectment but it was at the instance of a villager that action had been taken. 5. There surely existed a prima facie case for a respondent to contend that the property was not shamilat deh and that he had title to the property. CWP No.16355 of 1990 (O&M) -3- The Collector's power to refer the parties to adjudicate on title would arise in every situation where there existed a prima facie contention that a property is not shamilat deh. A Civil court decree in relation to the property, which was admitted to be shown as also covered in the property in question was a further reason which the Collector must have taken note of to hold that there surely existed a ground for adjudication relating to title in the manner laid down under Section 13-A of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents points out although Civil court decree was said to have been issued in his favour, the petitioner had never obtained mutation of entries in his own name exclusively. I will not allow this objection to detract from the fundamental issue which the petitioner was pressingforth that the matter relating to title was very much at large and an adjudication on title was required to be undertaken. Since the Collector himself had chosen to render the adjudication under Section 7-A of the Act, I would grant an opportunity to the Panchayat, if it so chooses to file a suit for adjudication that the land in dispute is shamilat deh, as contemplated in Section 13 of the Act. 7. The impugned order of ejectment is set aside and the writ petition is allowed subject to liberty to the Panchayat to take action for adjudication on title in accordance with law. MAY 23, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE