Civil Writ Petition No. 3659 of 1988 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 3659 of 1988 Date of decision : 10.02.2010 Piara Singh and others ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Hari Om Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. O.P. Dabla, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) Challenge in this petition is to order dated 05.05.1987 (Annexure P-2) passed by Joint Director Panchayats, Punjab under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 whereby appeal filled by Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 4 herein) was allowed and it was held that Gram Panchayat was owner of the land in dispute, thus Collector had no authority to alienate the same. It has been averred in the petition that petitioners are in possession of six marlas of land since partition of the country and thus, they are entitled to retain the possession of the same. On this ground, an application against eviction of the petitioners under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 was filed by Gram Panchayat. The Collector, Panchayat Lands, Kapurthala allowed the respondents to retain six marlas of land after depositing a sum of Rs. 2550/-. Civil Writ Petition No. 3659 of 1988 2 The petitioners tendered the amount of Rs. 2550/- vide receipt dated 17.03.1986 in the account of Gram Panchayat. It was also held that petitioners after deposit of money would be owners of the land in question. The Gram Panchayat, however, preferred an appeal against this order. The Joint Director Panchayats, Punjab after examining the matter came to the conclusion that possession of petitioners over the land was proved only from the year 1981-82 onwards. He thus, held that petitioners could not get the benefit of saving clause contained in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The finding of the Collector, Panchayat Lands, Kapurthala was thus, reversed and Gram Panchayat was held to be the owner of the land in dispute. It was also observed by the Appellate Authority that the Collector had no jurisdiction to sell the land of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners were directed to be ejected from the land in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that petitioners have been in possession since a very long time and it being only a six marla piece of land, they are entitled to retain possession over the same. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the order annexed with the petition. It is evident that the Appellate Authority examined the record produced in the case and found that in the Jamabandi for the year 1981-82 the land in dispute was shown as 'shamlat deh' and in the column of the cultivator, the entry recorded was 'Makbuja Malkan'. From the record he arrived at a conclusion that possession of the petitioners prior to 1981-82 was not proved. He thus, held that petitioners could not avail the benefit of Section 2(g) of the Act, 1961. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not Civil Writ Petition No. 3659 of 1988 3 been able to point out any legal infirmity with the impugned order. He has not been able to advance any argument to show that Collector had any authority to alienate the land belonging to Gram Panchayat on payment of certain amount. I am thus, of the considered view that impugned order Annexure P-2 suffers from no legal defect and deserves to be upheld. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed. February 10, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE