LPA No.1294 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No.1294 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.05.2010 Manjit Singh ....Appellant. Versus Director, Rural Development etc ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Manohar Dadwal, Advocate for the appellant. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. Present appeal is filed impugning order dated 27.5.2009 passed by learned Single Judge, dismissing CWP No.17809 of 2008, against the order of eviction of the writ petitioner – appellant under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Brief facts of the present case are that respondent No.3 herein filed an application before the Collector under Section 7 of the Act. Notices were issued to the writ petitioner as well as the Gram Panchayat. Writ petitioner/appellant herein contested the proceedings under Section 7 of the Act mainly on the ground that respondent No.3 has no locus to invoke jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 7 of the Act. The Collector vide LPA No.1294 of 2009 2 order dated 21.2.2006 directed eviction of the writ petitioner by holding that the land in dispute belongs to the Panchayat. Order of the Collector was duly confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 8.2.2008. Both the orders were assailed before learned Single Judge on the ground that respondent No.3 herein has absolutely no locus to invoke the jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 7 of the Act. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the jurisdiction of the Collector can be invoked only by the Panchayat or an officer duly authorised by the State government, by a general or special order. Since respondent No.4 was neither an office bearer of the Panchayat nor was ever authorised by the State government by a general or special order, hence respondent No.4 had absolutely no locus to file application before the Collector under Section 7 of the Act. 5. To appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, we think it proper to reproduce Sections 7 and 11 of the Act as under:- “7. Power to put Panchayat in possession of Shamilat deh:- (1) The Collector shall on an application made to him by a Panchayat, or by an officer, duly authorised in this behalf by the State Government by a general or special order, after making such enquiry, as he may think fit and in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed put the Panchayat in possession of the land or other immovable property in the shamilat deh of that village which vests or is deemed to have LPA No.1294 of 2009 3 been vested in it under this Act and for so doing the Collector may exercise the powers of a revenue Court in relation to the execution of a decree for possession of land under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. Provided that if after receipt of the application and before the Panchayat is put in possession of the land or other immovable property in the shamilat deh, a question of right, title or interest in such land or property is raised by any person and a prima facie case is made out in support thereof, the Collector shall direct the person who has raised such question to submit his claim under section 11 and till the question is so determined, the application shall remain pending; Provided further that if the person, who has raised the question of right, title or interest, fails to submit his claim under Section 11 within the time prescribed under that Section, the Collector shall proceed further to put the Panchayat in possession of the land or other immovable property in the shamilat deh. (2) An appeal against the order of the Collector under sub- section (1) shall lie to the Commissioner and the period of limitation for such an appeal shall be sixty days from the date of the order appealed against.” 11. Decision of claims of right, title or interest in shamilat deh.- (1) Any person or a Panchayat claiming right, title or interest in any land, vested or deemed to have been vested in a panchayat under this Act or claiming that any land has not so vested in a Panchayat, may submit to the Collector, within such LPA No.1294 of 2009 4 time, as may be prescribed, a statement of his claim in writing and signed and verified in the prescribed manner and the Collector shall have jurisdiction to decide such claim in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) Any person or a Panchayat aggrieved by an order of the Collector made under sub-section (1) may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Commissioner in such form and manner as may be prescribed and the Commissioner may after hearing the appeal, confirm, vary or reverse the order appealed from an may pass such order as he deems fit.” 6. From the perusal of Section 7 of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the Collector has power to put the Panchayat in possession of the land or other immovable property in shamilat deh of that village which vests or is deemed to have been vested in the Panchayat by dispossessing the unauthorised occupants thereon. 7. From the perusal of Section 11 of the Act, we have no hesitation to hold that any person claiming any right, title or interest in any land vested or deemed to have been vested in Panchayat may approach the Collector with a statement of his claim in writing. We further find that over the shamilat deh, every resident of the village has right or interest to use it because the land is for the common purpose of the resident of the village. Since respondent No.4 is a resident of that village and was having interest over the common land/shamilat deh, hence he had every locus to approach the Collector for dispossessing the unauthorised occupants from the land vested in Panchayat. LPA No.1294 of 2009 5 8. Undisputedly, the writ petitioner-appellant is not claiming any title over the property in dispute and the property in dispute belongs to Panchayat and is for the common use of the residents of the village, hence otherwise also, the appellant does not have any right to protect his illegal possession on the hypertechnical ground saying he can only be evicted on the application of the Panchayat or the office bearer of the Panchayat. 9. No other point was raised before us. No illegality or perversity is pointed out either in the judgement of learned Single Judge or in the order passed by the authorities below. 10. Appeal is devoid of merit and hence is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) 06.05.2010 Judge sk.