Ajit Singh vs Joint Development Commissioner and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—Civil Miscellaneous Application is allowed. Written statement filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3 is taken on

record.

On December 3, 1975, an application u/s 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short to be called ""the Act"") was

filed by the Respondent/Gram Panchayat. After the proceedings, which had been prolonged for a period of almost ten years, the Petitioner stated

that he was ready to give possession of 6 marlas of land. The Collector had disposed of the matter vide his order dated November 18, 1985. The

Petitioner was directed to deliver ""possession of the land to the Gram Panchayat within one month"". He did not carry out the direction or honour

his word. The Respondent/Panchayat was again constrained to file a fresh application u/s 7 of the act. This application was allowed by the District

Development and Panchayat officer vide his order dated April 26, 1999. A copy of this order is at An-nexure P5 with the writ petition. The

Petitioner filed an appeal. It was dismissed by the Commissioner on April 26, 2000. A copy of the order of the Commissioner is at Annexure P6

with the petition. Aggrieved by these orders, the Petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. He alleges that the order

passed on November 18, 1985 cannot be executed after a lapse of 12 years. Thus, the Petitioner prays that both the orders be quashed.

The Respondent/Panchayat has filed a reply and controverted the claim made by the Petitioner.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

Mr Jasbir Singh contends that the limitation having expired, the order dated November 18, 1985 cannot be executed. Secondly, he submits that

the dispute with regard to 23 marlas of land has been settled. The Panchayat is not honouring its commitment. Therefore, the Petitioner is also not

bound by the undertaking given by him on November 18, 1985. On these premises, the counsel prays that both the orders should be quashed.

Mr Balram Singh appearing for the Respondent-panchayat controverts the claim made on behalf of the Petitioner.

The Respondent-panchayat had undoubtedly initiated proceedings against the Petitioner under the provisions of the Act. These have culminated

in the order dated November 18, 1985. The Petitioner had undertaken to hand over vacant possession of the land. He had failed to abide by his

undertaking. Thereafter, the gram panchayat had initiated fresh proceedings u/s 7 of the Act. These were not in the nature of execution

proceedings. Thus. even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the plea of limitation could be raised, the fact remains that the gram

panchayat had filed a fresh case. The claim has been upheld by the two Authorities. It deserves notice that in the appeal, no plea of limitation was

raised.

Mr. Jasbir Singh contends that the dispute was with regard to 23 marlas of land. With regard to 17 marlas, fresh proceedings have been

separately initiated. These proceedings are continuing. A copy of the order passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer on Feb. 7,

2000 has been produced at Annexure P10 with the writ petition. He submits that the Respondent/panchayat is bound by its undertaking and thus,

the Petitioner''s claim in respect of 17 marlas of land should be accepted.

We are unable to accept this contention. Admittedly, the Petitioner has filed an appeal against the order dated February 7, 2000. That appeal is

still pending before the Commissioner. We shall not like to make any observation in respect of a matter which is pending. So far as the present

petition is concerned, it is directed against the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner, whereby the Petitioner has been held to be in

unauthorised occupation of the land measuring six marlas. The Petitioner has not been able to prove that he has any right or title in the property.

The order of his eviction is, thus, legal and valid. It calls for no interference.

No other point has been raised.

In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It is consequently dismissed.

The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.

Sd/- N.K. Sud, J.