Civil Writ Petition No.3383 of 2006 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: April 24, 2009 Santokh Masih & others ...Petitioners VERSUS Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G.Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Premjit Kalia, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners claim that they are in cultivating possession of the land in dispute as tenants of the Central Government. They further claim that they are continuously paying Civil Writ Petition No.3383 of 2006 : 2 : rent to the Central Government and have placed on record copies of Form No.32A along with the receipt and challan. Annexures P-3 and P-4 refer. Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) for eviction of the petitioners. The case set up by the petitioners is that this land belongs to Mohammedans Community, who have migrated to Pakistan in the year 1947 and as such has come to vest in the Central Government by virtue of provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. Some jamabandies have also been relied upon in support of this contention. It is pleaded that the Gram Panchayat is illegally managing the land and had got the mutation of the land sanctioned in its name. The Gram Panchayat had earlier threatened the petitioners to dispossess them when the occupants approached the civil court. The civil court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and also observed that shares of the evacuee which had vested in the custodian did not vest in the Panchayat and that the Panchayat has nothing to do with this land. This judgment, according to the petitioners, has acquired finality as it was not challenged. The counsel for the Panchayat, however, seriously joins issue with the petitioners on this count. He points out that father of petitioner No.1, namely, Rehmat Masih was the Sarpanch when the civil suit was decided and on the basis of a statement made by said Rehmat Masih this finding came against the Panchayat and in favour of the petitioners. The counsel further points out that the Panchayat is not under any obligation to challenge this collusive decree by filing Civil Writ Petition No.3383 of 2006 : 3 : a separate suit as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat of Village Naulakha Vs. Ujagar Singh and others, (2000) 7 Supreme Court Cases 543. A collusive nature of judgment can be considered in proceedings under the Act by the authorities. Whatever may be the position, the fact remains that in response to application filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Act, the petitioners did raise a question of title. In support of their plea, they relied upon the judgment passed by the civil court and as referred to above. Whether this judgment was required to be challenged by filing a separate suit or could be urged to be collusive and hence would not govern the rights of the parties in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat of Village Naulakha Vs. Ujagar Singh and others (supra) is appropriately required to be pleaded and decided by the authorities under the Act and is to be gone into by them. Once the petitioners had raised a question of title and had placed prima-facie material in support, the Assistant Collector Grade-I was required to decide the title of the property on the basis of respective pleas and evidence in support of respective stands. The fact that the judgment relied upon by the petitioners was collusive and, thus, required to be ignored was also to be decided by the authorities. Counsel for the respondents would further point out that there was no need to decide the title of the Gram Panchayat in this case, as petitioners had taken the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat after participating in an auction and the lessee would not Civil Writ Petition No.3383 of 2006 : 4 : have any right to challenge the title of the lessor. Be that as it may, this aspect can also be gone into by the Assistant Collector Grade-I. This is the stand which the Gram Panchayat would be entitled to take before the authorities concerned. The present writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the Assistant Collector Grade-I would go into the question of title as raised by the petitioners and then pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on an application filed by the Gram Panchayat for eviction of the petitioners under Section 7 of the Act. Since the case is being remanded and it is to be determined whether the petitioners had taken this land on lease from the Gram Panchayat, it would be appropriate for the Assistant Collector to decide the lis within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Assist Collector on 6.5.2009. April 24, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE