C.W.P. No. 16995 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 16995 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 01.11.2011 Gram Panchayat, Bhoglan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, through its Panch Sh. Sarabjit Singh. .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present:- Mr. A.S. Sidhu, Advocate for Mr. RKS Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. AG Punjab. Mr. R.N. Singal, Advocate for respondents No. 4 and 5. **** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J(Oral). Gram Panchayat, Bhoglan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the order dated 9.10.2009(Annexure P4) passed by the Commissioner and for setting aside the order dated 31.10.2007 (Annexure P2) passed by the Collector, Patiala, ordering ejectment of the private respondents. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order passed by the Commissioner as well as the order passed by the Collector. Undisputedly in this case the Gram Panchayat is seeking eviction of private respondents from the land described as ' A to B' C.W.P. No. 16995 of 2010 2 measuring 164 ft.,'B to C' measuring 120 ft., 'C to D' measuring 70 ft., 'D to E' measuring 94 ft., in the site plan. These pieces of land are situated within the 'abadi deh'. The Commissioner has set aside the order of eviction passed by the Collector while coming to the conclusion that the Gram Panchayat has miserably failed to prove that the land in dispute was used as a pond or for any other common purpose of the village. This finding of fact has been recorded on the basis of the evidence led by the respondents that the disputed site is being used by the private respondents as a 'bara' of the house and not for any common purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Gram Panchayat could not draw the attention of the Court towards any documentary or oral evidence to prove that the disputed site was either used as 'pond' or for any other common purpose of the village. Undisputedly the sites in dispute fall within the 'abadi deh'. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 10.1.1968 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura, in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. where it was observed that there is a dispute between two groups, and one group is claiming the property as the property of the Gram Panchayat and the other group claimed the property as its own. Keeping in view the dispute with regard to the possession, the said property was attached, and it was ordered to be resorted to the second party. Even in the said order no finding was recorded that the site in dispute was ever used by the inhabitants as pond or for any other common purpose of the village. In our opinion on the basis of the said order it cannot be said that the disputed sites belong to the Gram Panchayat. Undisputedly the 'abadi deh' property has been excluded from the definition of 'shalmat deh' by Section 2(g)(i) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act C.W.P. No. 16995 of 2010 3 1961. In view of the said factual and legal position, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE 01.11.2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) reema JUDGE