C.W.P. No.1496 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.1496 of 1989 Date of Decision.13.05.2010 Tej Pal Singh S/o Rama Nand, Village Phulwari, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana through the Secretary of Development and Panchayat, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents 2. C.W.P. No.1497 of 1989 Parkash and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana through the Secretary of Development and Panchayat, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG, Haryana. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioners in these two writ petitions complain of the order passed by the District Collector directing eviction of the petitioners in the petition filed by the Gram Panchayat. The complaint of the Gram Panchayat was that the property belonged to the panchayat and the petitioners had been in unlawful possession of the property. The statement in defence was that the petitioners are C.W.P. No.1496 of 1989 -2- using the property as abadi and they had been in continuous possession of more than 50 years. Before the Assistant Collector, they were also prepared to pay the market value of the property as well as penalty. The Assistant Collector, while dismissing the petition for eviction, imposed the penalty. In appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat, the Collector only observed that the entries in the revenue record were not correct and commented that the Assistant Collector had ignored the entry in the revenue record referring the property as belonging to the Panchayat and therefore, directed eviction of the property. 2. The Collector has passed the order only on the basis that the revenue entry in the jamabandi refers to the Panchayat and therefore, it was entitled to obtain an eviction. The order of the Assistant Collector had been passed after a personal inspection of the property and on his assessment the residential houses must have been more than 15 to 20 years before his inspection. He had also collected evidence from the spot to say that the persons in the village supported the view that all the persons against whom actions for eviction had been passed were residing there for the last 50 years. If the user of the property as residential land as abadi is elicited through evidence as obtaining for more than 50 years, it would only mean that the petitioners had been in possession even before 1950 and such a character of property will stand excluded from the Panchayat's ownership by Section 7(1) that vests a property in Panchayat as Shamlat Deh only if it is not abadi land. The Assistant Collector had come to the conclusion that it was abadi and C.W.P. No.1496 of 1989 -3- that all the persons had been in possession of the property for the last 50 years or more. It was a case where on his finding, it should have been possible to allow all the persons to continue in possession by dismissing the petitions for ejectment at the instance of Panchayat. On the other hand, on an offer by all the persons that they are willing to pay even the market price of the property and the penalty, he passed the benefit to the Panchayat by directing the payments with penalty. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the Panchayat had not come to any detriment, for in spite of the fact that property did not belong to the Panchayat, it was even benefitted by realising the market price as well as the penalty. The contention of the petitioners is well founded and the order of the Collector requires to be set aside. The petitioners shall retain their possession. The order of the Assistant Collector shall be carried to its logical end by appropriate sanction that will be issued for transfer of the property in favour of the petitioners in the manner known to law. 3. The writ petitions are allowed on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 13, 2010 Pankaj*