Braham Datt (Deceased) Through his Legal Representatives vs Assistant Collector Ist Grade and Others

Jasbir Singh, J.—This order will dispose of four writ petitions viz. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27 of 1996, all titled as "Braham Datt (Deceased) through his legal representatives v. Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rohtak and Others", involving similar questions of law and facts. To dictate order, facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 24 of 1996. This writ petition has been filed against an order dated 28.7.1992 (Annexure P10) vide which, petitioner-Braham Datt (since deceased) was ordered to be ejected from a piece of land measuring 3 kanals 11 marlas falling in khasra No. 36//7/1. Vide that order, it was observed that the land in dispute is ownership of the Gram Panchayat and the petitioner had raised unauthorized construction therein. Further challenge is laid to an order dated 22.11.1993 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner being barred by limitation.

As per facts on record, consolidation in the village took place in the year 1952-53. It is case of the petitioner that he had taken a small piece of land on rent from one Surja in the year 1965. Thai piece of land was purchased by him on 17.8.1972 for an amount of Rs. 6.000. Some part of the land was also purchased from one Nanwa on 17.5.1973.

In the year 1972, respondent No. 3-Gram Panchayat gave notice to the petitioner under Rule 20 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1954 (in short "the Rules") for his ejectment. Petitioner filed reply to that notice and thereafter no action was taken. After about ten years, the Gram Panchayat again filed an application u/s 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") for his ejectment from the land in dispute. That application was dismissed in default on 23.5.1983. In the meantime, the petitioner raised construction in that land. The Gram Panchayat again filed an application u/s 7 of the Act for his ejectment, which was allowed by respondent No. 1 without looking into the revenue record, primarily on the basis of spot inspection. Vide order dated 28.7.1992, the petitioner was ordered to be ejected.

It is case of the petitioner that under some wrong advice, he filed a review application and also a civil suit to lay challenge to the above said order. Thereafter, he filed an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 22.11.1993.

Heard counsel for the parties.

We have perused order passed by the Collector, after noting the extent of alleged illegal possession of the petitioner and by making reference to the pleadings of the parties, ejectment was ordered. The revenue documents were not discussed at all, and in a very arbitrary manner, by making reference only to a jamabandi for the year 1984-85, it was observed that the Gram Panchayat is owner of the land in dispute. Relevant portion of that order reads thus:--

I have seen the disputed land on spot in the presence of respondent, Sarpanch and other respectable of the village and I have perused the record carefully. As per jamabandi for the year 1984-85 khasra No. 36/7/1 measuring 3 K 11 M is the property of Gram Panchayat and as per that possession is entered as Maqbooja Panchayat deh. The respondent has not produced any document which can prove that he is owner of disputed land. After spot inspection it has been found that respondent has constructed shop on it and is in its unauthorized possession.

Against the above order, the petitioner filed a review application, which was dismissed. Thereafter, an appeal was filed on 5.10.1993. After noting the averments made by counsel for the petitioner, by passing a non-speaking order on 22.11.1993, the Collector dismissed that appeal being time barred. Nothing was said on merits.

It was contention of counsel for the petitioner, before the authorities below, that at the time of consolidation proceedings, as per jamabandi for the year 1960-61 (Annexure P1), the land in dispute, falling in khasra No. 36/77/1, measuring 3 kanals 11 marlas was kept for Gair Mumkin Abadi. Despite bringing it to the notice of the authorities below, that document was not considered.

By making reference to the above fact and the entries made in jamabandi for the year 1960-61, it is stated that such like land would not fall within the definition of shamlat deh as contained in Section 2(g) of the Act. Further contention of the petitioner that he had purchased land from an occupant to whom possession was given after consolidation, was also not considered.

In jamabandi for the year 1984-85, admittedly, the land is shown in the ownership and possession of Gram Panchayat, however, in the remarks column, it is mentioned that the land is in possession of an occupant without rent and its nature is shown as Gair Mumkin Abadi. In column No. 5 of the document (Annexure P8), i.e. copy of jamabandi for the year 1984-85, the land is shown in possession of Makbuja Kamian Deh. It is stated that the Assistant Collector has placed reliance upon a document of which correct translation was not made. The Collector has dismissed appeal filed by the petitioner on account of limitation. Reason given by the petitioner that he being an illiterate person, filed an application for review. That fact was not considered at all and the appeal was dismissed in a very harsh manner.

The facts on record clearly indicate that tentatively a question of title was involved. The petitioner was claiming that the land was reserved for abadi. To say so, reliance was placed upon jamabandi for the year 1960-61 (Annexure P1). The sale deeds were also brought to the notice of the authorities below vide which the land was purchased by the petitioner from the non-proprietors in whose possession, the land was put, after consolidation. This was not so considered. Simply by placing reliance upon some spot inspection and wrongly translated document i.e. jamabandi for the year 1984-85, orders were passed.

Prima facie, we are satisfied that the question of title is involved in this case which should have been decided by the authorities below. However, it was not so done. The quasi judicial authorities when deciding valuable rights of the parties are supposed to make reference to the revenue document and then form an opinion by passing a speaking order. In this case, order under challenge shows non application of mind. Under the circumstances, we allow all the four writ petitions and orders under challenge are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Collector at Rohtak. The parties are directed to appear before the above officer on 27.8.2013. Liberty is granted to both the parties to support their pleadings by bringing on record the documents. They be afforded two opportunities each for the said purpose. Thereafter, the Collector shall take up the matter and decide question of title in the first instance and then pass an order either way so far as application of Gram Panchayat, filed u/s 7 of the Act, is concerned.