CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4388 OF 1988 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 20, 2009 Hasan Mohammad .....Petitioner VERSUS Social Education and Panchayat Officer, Nagina, District Gurgaon 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. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Sura, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of three writ petitions bearing No.4388 of 1988 (Hasan Mohammad Vs. Social Education and Panchayat Officer, Nagina, District Gurgaon and others), 4389 of 1988 (Safed Khan through his L.R Vs. Social Education and Panchayat Officer, Nagina, District Gurgaon and others) and 4390 of 1988 (Safed Khan through his L.R and another Vs. Social Education and Panchayat Officer, Nagina, District CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4388 OF 1988 :{ 2 }: Gurgaon and others). The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.4388 of 1988. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge the order passed by Collector, directing his ejectment from the land in dispute. Application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1974 (for short, “the Act”) was filed by Social Education and Panchayat Officer on behalf of village Panchayat, Nagina, Tehsil Ferozepur Jhirka, praying that the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the agricultural land situated in the said village total measuring 17 K 2 M. It was pleaded that in the column of jamabandi for the year 1982-83, Municipal Committee was entered as the owner. After the abolition of Municipal Committee, Gram Panchayat for the village was constituted and this land came to vest in Gram Panchayat. The petitioner was alleged to have illegally and forcibly taken possession of the land and accordingly application for his ejectment was filed under Section 7 of the Act. In response to the notice, the petitioner appeared before the Assistant Collector and pleaded that the disputed land was owned by Jumla Malkan and the entries in the name of Gram Panchayat had illegally been made. It was accordingly pleaded that Gram Panchayat would not have any right to file the suit, which was liable to be dismissed. The petitioner, who was respondent also, appeared as a witness and produced on record various jamabandies for the years 1958-59, 1962-63, 1967-68, 1972-73, 1977-78 and 1982-83. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4388 OF 1988 :{ 3 }: During the course of arguments, it was submitted that in the jamabandi entries for the year 1982-83, Municipal Committee was entered as owner and as per mutation No.5641, Gram Panchayat had become the owner. Since the Gram Panchayat was shown as the owner in the jamabandi, presumption of truth would be attached to the jamabandies and the earlier jamabandi would not go to rebut the claim of the petitioner. Certain judgments were also cited before the Assistant collector. One of the plea that was taken by the petitioner was that he has raised a question of title and as such, the Assistant Collector was first required to decide the title before he proceeded to decide the application for ejectment of the petitioner. Assistant Collector found that prima-facie question of title had been raised and accordingly proceeded to decide the same under Section 13-A of the Act to see in case the disputed land would vest in the Gram Panchayat or not. The parties were given chance to produce the evidence and the petitioner produced jamabandies for the years 1963-64, 1958-59 and 1952-53 as an additional evidence. Ultimately, Assistant Collector came to take a view that the land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat and would vest in the proprietary body. Accordingly, he dismissed the application of the Gram Panchayat filed under Section 7 of the Act. The order passed by the Assistant Collector was appealed against before the Collector, Gurgaon, who, vide his order dated 22.12.1987, has ordered ejectment of the petitioner, which is impugned in the present writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner would primarily contend CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4388 OF 1988 :{ 4 }: that the entries in favour of Gram Panchayat were on the basis of a Government letter, which would not go to create any right in favour of the Gram Panchayat. He has referred to certain judgments to say that the entries in favour of Gram Panchayat can not be given credence, which were done only on the basis of a Government letter. No written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the entries, which have been relied upon by the Collector pertaining to the year 1982-83, which is the last jamabandi, could not have been relied upon over the credible evidence concerning the number of entries otherwise standing in favour of the petitioner. In fact, this entry has come into existence only on the basis of a Government letter. In this regard, he would also refer to the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Jai Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2003(2) PLR 658, wherein such a mutation entry made on the basis of Act of 9 of 1992, which was challenged before this Court, wherein it is held that if any mutation might have come into existence on the basis of Act of 9 of 1992, the said mutation shall stand cancelled or set-aside, leaving it open for the Gram Panchayat to file an application for eviction under Section 7 of the Act or the title suit under Section 13A, as the case may be. On the strength of this judgment, the counsel would say that entries, which are standing in favour of the Gram Panchayat, would have to go/set-aside automatically and accordingly the order passed by the Collector can not be allowed to stand. There is some force in the submission made by learned CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4388 OF 1988 :{ 5 }: counsel for the petitioner. He has also another grievance that the entire evidence has not been taken into consideration by the Collector while deciding the application for ejectment filed by the Panchayat. The entries in favour of Gram Panchayat, which have been relied upon by the Collector to order ejectment of the petitioner, obviously will have to make way in view of the law laid down in Jai Singh's case (supra). If that happens, it is not clear as to what evidence will remain support of the Gram Panchayat to show that it is the owner of the said property. The case would need to be decided afresh on the basis of the legal position as it would emerge. It would be, thus, appropriate to remand these cases back to the Collector to give an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, showing their title to the suit and then re-decide the case in accordance with law. The impugned order is accordingly set-aside. The case is remanded back to the Collector for deciding the entire issue afresh. The parties would be at liberty to make any additional pleadings. The Collector would also take into consideration the law as laid down in various cases as cited before him and decide afresh whether the petitioner is required to be ejected from the disputed land or not. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Collector on 10.2.2009. With the above observations, the petitions are disposed of. January 20,2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE