CWP No.5955 of 1987 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5955 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision:22.03.2011. Ram Kishan ...Petitioner Versus The Collector, Karnal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing of orders Annexures P-3 and P-4 by which he has been ordered to be ejected from the land measuring 12 Marlas, out of total land measuring 1 Kanal 07 Marlas, comprised in Khewat No.85, Khatauni No.156, Khasra No.143, situated within the revenue estate of village Budhanpur Khalsa, Tehsil and District Karnal, on an application filed under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 [for short “the Act”] by respondent No.3 before respondent No.2 on the ground that the petitioner is in unauthorized possession of the land which is shamlat deh and is owned by the Gram Panchayat/respondent No.4. In brief, respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 7 of the Act on 15.02.1982 for ejectment of the petitioner from the land measuring 12 Marlas, comprised in Khasra No.143, situated within the revenue estate of Budhanpur Khalsa, Tehsil and District Karnal on the ground that he is in CWP No.5955 of 1987 (O&M) -2- ***** unauthorized possession over the shamlat land which belongs to the Gram Panchayat. Application was contested in which it was alleged that the land in dispute is situated outside the abadi deh, on which the petitioner had raised his house and is living there for the last 40 years and the said site is not part of the Johar (pond). Respondent No.2 tried the application filed under Section 7 of the Act. The respondents had relied upon jamabandi for the year 1979-80 (Ex.A1) and report of nishandehi of Khasra No.143 (Ex.A2) from which it was found that the land in question had been recorded as gair mumkin johar and the land in dispute is a part of the said Johar which has been unauthorizedly occupied by the petitioner. Respondent No.2, vide his impugned order dated 09.02.1987, came to a conclusion from the report of the Local Commissioner i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, PWD(B&R) that it is a newly constructed house and is not 40 years old as alleged in reply by the petitioner and as per the report nishandehi that it is a part of gair mumkin johar which is so recorded in the jamabandi, ordered ejectment of the petitioner from the land in dispute. The petitioner then filed appeal to the Collector, Karnal (respondent No.1) which was also dismissed on the ground that the property in dispute is a part of Johar (pond) which is used for rafai aam (common purpose) and falls within the definition of shamlat deh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has constructed his house on the property in question for the last many years and that it does not fall within the definition of shamlat deh. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. Section 2(g)(4) of the Act defines shamlat deh which is the land used or reserved for the benefit of the village, community, including streets, lanes, playgrounds, school, drinking wells, or ponds within abadi deh or gorah deh. Since the land in dispute, which has been identified by way of report nishandehi (Ex.A2) and falls in Khewat No.85, Khatauni No.156, Khasra No.143 as per jamabandi for the year 1979-80 (Ex.A1), is recorded as gair mumkin johar (pond), which falls within the definition of shamlat deh as per Section 2(g)(4) of the Act, therefore, the petitioner, who has miserably failed to CWP No.5955 of 1987 (O&M) -3- ***** prove his title over the land in dispute and has also failed to lead any prima facie evidence in order to claim a regular trial on the question of title, is not entitled to retain the land of shamlat deh even if he has raised his house on it because retention of the land by unauthorized occupant on this ground would give a premium to such persons in the name of equity and it would be against the public interest and the public policy. In view of the above observations, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition to disturb the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.1 & 2 and as such, the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. March , 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE