CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Chhattu Ram vs Joint Director, Panchayats and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 27 October 2004 · Citation: (2005) 140 PLR 66 : (2005) 1 RCR(Civil) 402

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashutosh Mohunta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 · Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 — Section 4, 7
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 5226 of 1985
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 338 words

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.—Through the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of orders dated 2.5.1983 and 26,10.1984 (Annexure P-1 and P-2) passed by the District Development and Panchayats Officer, Ferozepur, exercising the powers of Collector; and Joint Director Panchayats, Punjab, exercising the powers of Commissioner, respectively. Vide the aforesaid impugned orders, the application filed by the Gram Panchayat, Sardarpura, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur, under Sections 4 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short ''the Act'') was allowed. Accordingly, the Gram Panchayat was held to be the owner in possession whereas the petitioner was held to be in unauthorised occupation of the suit land. The petitioner claimed that the land in dispute was Jumla Mushtarka Malkan, hence the Gram Panchayat has no right over the suit land. Thus, the petitioner could not be ordered to be evicted.

2.

On the other hand, the respondents have placed on record a report of the Patwari dated 29.10.1984 showing delivery of possession of the suit land having been given to the Gram Panchayat. Subsequent Khasra Girdawari entries also substantiate the above factual position.

3.

A perusal of the documents produced by the Gram Panchayat clearly shows that it is the Gram Panchayat which is the owner in possession of the suit land and, therefore, -the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the same.

4.

Mr. Khunger, however, states in order to verify the afore-mentioned factual position, he tried to contact his client, but has not responded despite registered letters sent to him.

5.

In view of the afore-mentioned facts, it is clear from the documents placed on record by the respondent-Gram Panchayat that the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the suit land and it has already taken possession of the same vide Rapat Roznamcha dated 2.10.1984 and the petitioner has, accordingly, been disposed.

6.

In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.