Atma Ram vs Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab .

G.C. Mital, J. (Oral)

Gram Panchayat Garhbagha, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar, filed separate applications under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'') against 9 set of occupants for their eviction on the ground that they were in unauthorised occupation of shamlat land which vested in it. The applications were contested and the occupants pleaded that they were in possession of the same long before 26.1.1950 and that the land did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The District Development and Panchayat Officer, exercising the powers of Collector, dismissed the applications by observing that according to the statement of the Sarpanch, they were in possession earlier to the year 1950. However, in the earlier part of the order, the documents produced by the parties were noticed.

Against the aforesaid order, the Gram Panchayat took the matter in appeal before the Joint Director, Panchayats, who was exercising the powers of Commissioner. Before the Appellate Authority, the counsel for the Gram Panchayat had argued that the Collector had not decided the case on the basis of the documentary evidence brought on record and had simply relied on the statement of Sarpanch and consequently the order of the Collector being a nonspeaking should be quashed. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeals and quashed the order of the Collector with the following observations:

"I have gone through the file of the trial Court. I find that the order of the learned Collector is nonspeaking. The learned Collector has relied on the statement of the respondent and Bachna Ram, Lambardar and no documentary proof has been produced by the respondent to prove that he is in uninterrupted culitivating possession of the land since prior to 26.1.1950."

Against the aforesaid order, Civil Writ Petition Nos. 588 to 590, 915, 916, 1041, 1042, 1044 and 1243 of 1985 have been filed by the occupants under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Since, these writ petitions arise out of the same order, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the Appellate Authority was right in observing that the Collector had not decided the matter on the basis of entire evidence led in the case. All the same, the Appellate Authority also committed error in observing that the occupants had not produced any documentary evidence to prove their cultivating possession. On the record, as noticed by the Collector, the occupants had produced Jamabandis for the years 194243, 194647, 195051, 195556 and also for subsequent years. The Appellate Authority committed one more mistake. If it was of the opinion that the Collector had not passed a speaking order, the matter had to be remitted to it for passing a speaking order on the basis of evidence led in the case.

In view of the above, these writ petitions are allowed, the orders of the Collector and that of the Appellate Authority are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Development and Panchayat Officer (exercising the powers of Collector), Rupnagar/Ropar, for decision of the matter afresh on the basis of the entire evidence led in the case. The Collector shall give the process of reasoning in the order for its decision.

The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the District Development and Panchayat Officer (exercising the powers of Collector), Ropar/Rupnagar on 7th April, 1986. The parties are, however, to bear their own costs.