CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4222 OF 1985 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: January 28, 2009 Sadhu Dass Chela Dharam Dass Chela Bishan Dass .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. H. S. Kathuria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State. Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of order, Annexure P-7, directing his eviction from the land made under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”). He has also impugned the order passed by the Commissioner, whereby his appeal was also dismissed The petitioner claims to be a share holder in a land in Village Mehma Sarja, Tehsil and District Bhatinda. He states that his forefathers were in possession of some land, according to their share CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4222 OF 1985 :{ 2 }: in the shamlat land, from 60 years or so. The land is shown in favour of shamlat patti mehma in the revenue record, in the ownership column. In terms of the provisions of the Act, the land which was earlier shown in the name of shamlat patti mehma, was mutated in the name of Gram Panchayat, Mehma Sarja. Petitioner and one Kaka Singh filed objections against this order, seeking cancellation of the same. It was ultimately held that the land was wrongly mutated from patti shamlat to the Gram Panchayat and order in this regard is Annexure P-2. It is accordingly pleaded that the land was not in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat and hence, could not fall within the purview of the Act. Despite this position, respondent-Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 of the Act against the petitioner as well as Kaka Singh. The said petition was dismissed, so far as Kaka Singh was concerned. Copy of this order is Annexure P- 6. The petitioner claims that land measuring 13 Kanals 2 Marlas, which was in possession of Kaka Singh is out of land measuring 21Kanals 5 Marlas and, thus, was not belonging to the Gram Panchayat. The appeal against the order declining the eviction of Kaka Singh was also dismissed. However, the petition filed under Section 7 of the Act against the petitioner was allowed and he was directed to be evicted from the land. The petitioner has failed in his appeal and that is how he has filed the present petition. No reply behalf of Gram Panchayat has been filed. The counsel representing the Gram Panchayat, however, pleaded that orders impugned before the court are quasi-judicial orders and so no reply needs to be filed. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4222 OF 1985 :{ 3 }: While allowing the prayer of the Gram Panchyat, it is noticed that the petitioner could not show any proof in support of his claim that he is co-sharer of patti-mehma. Reference is made to jamabandi for the year 1965-66 to show the Gram Panchayat to be the owner. The submission that the land was shown transferred on the name of patti was noticed by the Collector and it was observed as under: “The learned counsel for respondent has ignored the remarks in column No.3 regarding order of Assistant Collector Ist Class, Bhatinda, dated 12.12.67. The mutation No.5022 entries done by Patwari and other authorities on 28.2.69 and 1.4.69 as mentioned in column No.15 of copy Ex.R2 on the back side of this copy the gist of order of Assistant Collector Ist Grade dated 12.12.67 has been given according to which Khasra No.520/852 to 856, ownership was transferred to Gram Panchayat including certain area under the possession of Shri Kaka Singh. The learned counsel for respondent has also referred Ex.R-4 which is an unattested photostat copy of the order of the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, dated 22.1.66, R.O.R. No.194 of 1965-66. According to which Shri Kaka Singh etc. were applicants and Gram Panchayat Mehma Sarja is respondent. In this order the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab, had set-aside the order of assistant Collector IInd Grade, referred above in mutation No.5022. This case was remanded to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhatinda for fresh decision CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4222 OF 1985 :{ 4 }: according to law. The order of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhatinda, as on Ex.P2 page 2 dated 12.12.67 show the rights have been conferred on the Gram Panchayat at Mehma Sarja.” It was further noticed that the petitioner could not link the khasra numbers under dispute and he also did not produce on record any document in support of the khasra numbers. Accordingly, the application under Section 7 of the Act was allowed, directing his eviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to show that the number in the entries could be related to the one for which the eviction of the petitioner was sought as mentioned in the heading of the order but he could not succeed. Even otherwise, it is a pure question of fact whether the petitioner succeeded in linking the numbers, which were stated to be in the possession of patti. He also could not show whether he was a proprietor being member of that patti. Accordingly, he was unable to establish his lawful possession over the land in dispute. Finding that he was in an unauthorised possession, the order of eviction has been made. I have not been able to see any infirmity in the impugned order, which would call for any interference, especially so when the petitioner is only making an attempt to seek re-appreciation of facts and the documents. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petition is accordingly dismissed. January 28, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE