LPA No.409 of 2011 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.409 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: March 07, 2011 Gram Panchayat Kothe Mahan Singh through Mandeep Kaur, Sarpanch, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda ...APPELLANT Versus State of Punjab and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL .. Present: Mr. G.S. Kaura, Advocate, for the appellant. ... SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Gram Panchayat, Village Kothe Mahan Singh, has filed this Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.18969 of 2010) filed by the appellant was dismissed in limitation on the ground of laches. Though this appeal is barred by limitation as along with the appeal the appellant has filed an application (CM No.1106 of 2011) for condonation of delay of 22 days in filing the appeal, however, without taking the said delay in consideration, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merits of the case and gone through the record of the case. In this case, the appellant-Gram Panchayat filed an eviction petition under Section 4 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction LPA No.409 of 2011 (O & M) -2- and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 against the private respondents from the land comprising in Khasra No.381 measuring 9 Kanals 2 Marlas. The District Development and Panchayat Officer, Bathinda (exercising the powers of Collector), allowed the said petition and the private respondents were ordered to be evicted from the disputed land within a period of thirty days. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the private respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, who vide his order dated 26.3.1998 allowed the same and dismissed the eviction petition, while coming to the conclusion that the disputed land as per the revenue record is under the title of Jumla Malkan Wa Diggar Hakdaran Araji Hasab Rassad Raqba and the mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat was entered only on the basis of the Government letter, therefore, the Gram Panchayat could not be taken as owner of the property and has no locus standi to seek eviction of the private respondents. After twelve years of the said order, the Gram Panchayat filed the writ petition, challenging the same, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of laches, while coming to the conclusion that the Gram Panchayat has not explained the inordinate delay of twelve years in filing the petition. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant could not explain the inordinate delay, except that the earlier Gram Panchayat did not challenge the order dated 26.3.1998, passed by the Commissioner. Before this Court also, learned counsel is not able to explain the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. Even otherwise, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Gram Panchayat is not remediless. If in the revenue record, the land in dispute has been shown in the column of ownership as Jumla Malkan Wa Diggar Hakdaran Araji LPA No.409 of 2011 (O & M) -3- Hasab Rassad Raqba for common purposes of the village, then the Gram Panchayat has a remedy qua ownership and eviction of illegal occupant of the land by initiating appropriate proceedings, under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and if such proceeding is initiated, in our opinion, the order passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot will not come in its way, being order passed in summary proceeding. Therefore, in view of these facts, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order, passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. However, it will be open for the Gram Panchayat to seek its remedy regarding disputed land before the authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, in accordance with law. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE March 07, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE