IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 20354 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 09.11.2011 Balbir Singh and others .... PETITIONERS Versus The State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS C.W.P. No. 20377 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 09.11.2011 Raghubir .... PETITIONER Versus The State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 20354 and 20377 of 2011, as both these petitions are arising from the common order dated 18.8.2011 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Camp at Karnal. CWP No. 20354 of 2011 -2- In both these cases, Gram Panchayat, Village Bajida Jattan, Tehsil and District Karnal (respondent No.5) filed separate eviction petitions under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (As Applicable to Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), against the petitioners in both the writ petitions, alleging that their possession on the land of the Gram Panchayat is illegal and un- authorised. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Karnal, who was having the jurisdiction to entertain such petitions, after recording evidence produced by the petitioners in both the writ petitions and providing an opportunity of hearing to them, passed separate order dated 12.11.2010 (Annexure P-1) ordering their ejectment. In CWP No. 20354 of 2011, the land involved is 39 Kanals 13 Marlas and the disputed land in CWP No. 20377 of 2011 is measuring 22 Kanals 18 Marlas. As per the revenue record, i.e. Jamabandis for the years 1991-92 and 2006-07, the respondent Gram Panchayat has been recorded as owner of the disputed land and the petitioners have been recorded as Gair Marusi. Before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, the petitioners stated that they and their forefathers are in possession of the land in dispute since long, therefore, their possession on the disputed land cannot be said to be illegal and un-authorised. It is admitted position that except the aforesaid revenue record and the oral assertion that the predecessors of the petitioners were in possession of the land in dispute for a long time, no documentary evidence was produced by the petitioners. It was never the case of the petitioners that they are the proprietors of the village and the CWP No. 20354 of 2011 -3- land belongs to them as co-sharers. The Assistant Collector, while taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties and keeping in view the provision of Section 4 (3) (ii) of the Act, came to the conclusion that the petitioners have failed to prove their continuous possession on the land in dispute for twelve years before the commencement of the Act. Consequently, in view of Section 4 (3) (ii) of the Act, it was found that case of the petitioners does not fall under the said clause and they were ordered to be evicted from the land in question. The said order was upheld by the Collector as well as the Commissioner. Undisputedly, as per the revenue record, i.e. Jamabandis for the years 1991-92 and 2006-07, the respondent Gram Panchayat is owner of the disputed land. The petitioners can only claim that their possession is legal and authorised, while invoking clause (ii) of Section 4 (3) of the Act, which provides that the persons who were in cultivating possession of shamilat deh for more than twelve years immediately preceding the commencement of the Act without payment of rent or by payment of charges not exceeding the land revenue and cesses payable thereon, cannot be said to be in illegal and un-authorised possession of such person and such land is exempted from vesting in the Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners raised a question of title before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, but the Assistant Collector, without deciding that question, has proceeded with the ejectment application. This contention cannot be accepted. Though proviso CWP No. 20354 of 2011 -4- to Section 7 (1) of the Act provides that if in any such proceedings, the question of title is raised and proved prima facie on the basis of documents that the question of title is really involved, the Assistant Collector shall record a finding to that effect and first decide the question of title in the manner laid down in the Act. Thus, for converting the ejectment proceedings into a title suit, it is mandatory for the person who raises the question of title to prove prima facie on the basis of documents that the question of title is really involved in the proceedings. In the present case, neither any material was placed nor any document showing that the question of title was really involved in the case was proved before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Therefore, in our view, the Assistant Collector rightly did not convert the ejectment proceedings into the title suit. Thus, we do not find any force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and there is no illegality in the orders of ejectment, passed by the authorities below. No merits. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 09, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE