IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.722 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 20.04.2011 Surjit Singh …..Appellant versus Gram Panchayat Mandhala and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed by Surjit Singh son of Maghar Singh, who was not a petitioner in CWP No.1442 of 1988. Maghar Singh had died in the year 1992. With this appeal, an application bearing C.M. No.1905 of 2011 has been filed with a prayer that the appellant Surjit Singh be allowed to file this appeal. Taking note of the facts mentioned in this application, we allow this application for the limited purpose of filing this appeal only. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 14.1.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing CWP No.1442 of 1988 filed by father of the appellant. It is apparent from the record that father of the appellant, who as per finding given, was in unauthorized occupation of Jumla Mushtarka Malkaan land measuring 45 kanal 10 marla for the last about three decades LPA No.722 of 2011 till the time of admission of this writ petition by this Court in the year 1988. By that time, he had not paid even a single penny towards rent either to the Gram Panchayat or to any member of the Jumla Mushtarka Malkaan. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was a land owner when consolidation proceedings were conducted in the village and further that any cut was imposed upon his holding when land was earmarked and kept separate in the khewat of the Jumla Mushtarka Malkaan land. At the time of arguments before this Court, counsel for the appellant has failed to show that the appellant had any right of ownership in the land in dispute. In CWP No.1442 of 1988, father of the appellant had laid challenge to the orders dated 26.6.1987, 24.11.1987 and 18.1.1988, vide which, he was ordered to be ejected from the land in dispute. It is apparent from the record that the Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 read with Rule 20-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, by alleging that father of the appellant is in unauthorized occupation of the land, he had not paid any rent to the Gram Panchayat or to anybody else. Prayer was for his ejectment. Sufficient opportunity was given to both the parties to lead evidence and after concluding the proceedings, it was observed as under:- “I have heard both the parties and perused the revenue record produced on the file. As per revenue record the suit land is Mushtarka Malkan which is being leased out by the Gram Panchayat. The respondent No.1 remained leasee of the gram Panchayat since 1979-80 to 1983-84. In the year 1984 the respondent No.1 in connivance with the respondent no.2 unauthorisedly occupied the suit land and they both are in 2 LPA No.722 of 2011 illegal possession over the suit land since 1984-85 and did not pay the lease money to the gram Panchayat. In the year 1983- 84 the suit land was leased out in Rs.2325/-. The respondents are liable to deposit Rs.46,500/- 20 times of lease money Rs.2325/-. I pass the orders accordingly. The respondents are ordered to deposit Rs.46,500/- in the Panchayat fund within one month. If they failed to deposit the same, the amount will be recovered as arrear of land Revenue. The appeal of gram Panchayat stands disposed off.” The Collector came to a conclusion that the possession is unauthorized and rent has not been paid to the Gram Panchayat. Father of the appellant failed in appeal. His revision was also dismissed. He came to this Court by filing above said writ petition which has been dismissed vide the impugned order. Hence, this appeal. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that in the face of judgment passed by the Civil Court, in a suit for injunction, on 3.6.1986, wherein a finding has been given that the Gram Panchayat has no concern with the land in dispute, the Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition. This argument was not raised before the learned Single Judge. Be that as it may, we have considered this argument, in the light of the finding given by the civil Court in judgment mentioned above. There was no issue so far as ownership is concerned and furthermore, in the judgment very casually it was stated that the defendant Gram Panchayat had got no concern with the suit land. We feel that the finding given is not binding between the parties and furthermore, once, it has come on record that the appellant was not one of the Jumla Mushtarka Malkaan of the village and 3 LPA No.722 of 2011 no cut was imposed upon his property when land was earmarked as such, he has no right to say that the Gram Panchayat has no authority to manage the land in terms of the provisions of Section 23-A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (in short, 1948 Act). It has rightly been said so by the learned Single Judge. Before the authorities below and before this Court also, it was a positive case of the appellant that father of the appellant has taken land on lease from the Jumla Mushtarka Malkaan. Who represented Jumla Mushtarka Malkaan, to whom rent was paid, is not on record. No such evidence was brought on record before this Court. Civil Court has not considered provisions of Section 23A of the 1948 Act, which provides that the management of Jumla Mushtarka Malkaan land shall vest in the Gram Panchayat. Otherwise also, it will be in the public interest that the land of Jumla Mushtarka Malkaan in this case be managed by the Gram Panchayat and not allowed to be remained in unauthorized occupation of the appellant. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. The authorities below are directed to execute the orders passed against the appellant forthwith. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 20.04.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 4