IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.27 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.8.2009 Gram Panchayat Balliana. -----Appellant Vs. Hazari & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G., Haryana for respondents No.5 & 6. ----- ORDER: 1. The Panchayat is aggrieved by order of the learned Single Judge, setting aside the order of eviction against respondents No.1 to 4 under the provisions of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”). 2. In reply to the eviction proceedings initiated by the Panchayat, respondents No.1 to 4 set up their rights under a lease created in their favour on 1963 by Baba Prakasha Nand, Mahant of the temple, to whom the suit land had been given by the proprietors as gift for religious purpose (Dohli). Without determining the question of title under Section 13-A of the Act, LPA No.27 of 2008 the order of eviction was passed on the basis of entry in the revenue records showing the land to be Panchayat land and also based on decree of the Civil Court on the basis of statement of Baba Prakasha Nand. 3. Learned Single Judge held as under:- “....Since the gift was made by the proprietors of the village, it must revert to the proprietors of the village and cannot go to the Gram Panchayat. It is obvious that the Gram Panchayat had no right to assert its ownership over the land which belonged to the original proprietors or the persons who had created the dohli in favour of Baba Parkasha Nand or his predecessors. In view of the above, I hold that the authorities below had misread the evidence and mis-construed the provisions of law. They were required to find out who the original proprietors were, when the dohli was created and who were the persons whom the land stood reverted after extinguishment of dohli. The petitioners may be descendants of some of the original proprietors but may not be the sole descendants. Therefore, while the Gram Panchayat was not the owner of the property, its application under Section 7 of the Act was wrongly accepted. Even the petitioners may not be the sole owners. The title to the land in dispute is required to be determined under Section 13-A of the Act. Until the title is determined, the petitioners shall continue to enjoy the possession as lessees but after title has been determined the petitioners would be required to vacate the property and also pay lease money for the 2 LPA No.27 of 2008 period during which he enjoyed the possession, as determined by the Collector.” 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. We see no objection to the view taken by the learned Single Judge that in absence of title in favour of the Panchayat being first determined under Section 13-A of the Act, proceedings for eviction were not called for, merely on the basis of revenue record or statement of Baba Prakasha Nand. The dispute remains as to whether ownership will remain with the Panchayat or with the proprietors. The Panchayat has remedy of getting its title determined in appropriate proceedings. 6. In view of above, no ground is made out to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 04, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 3