Gram Panchayat Khiala vs Joint Director, Panchkula (Commissioner)

H.S. Bedi, J.—By this judgment, we propose to dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 345, 302, 344, 346, 347 and 348 of 1986 as common questions arise therein and have been directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated February 13,1986, allowing the writ petitions and quashing the orders Annexures P-2 and P-3. For facility of ready reference, the facts have been taken from Letters Patent Appeal No. 345 of 1986.

Chhaju Ram respondent is a landowner within the revenue estate of village Khiala, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, In the year 1960-61, during consolidation proceedings, 873 kanals of land were carved out as Mustarka Malkan after imposing a pro-rata cut on the landowners. The appellant Gram Panchayat believing that as the land was shown as Mustarka Malkan, the right to manage the same vested in the Gram Panchayat and as such, they could evict the landowners who were in possession thereof so that the land could be leased out for deriving income for the Gram Panchayat. In order to achieve this object, an application was filed u/s 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Recovery) Act, 1973 read with Section 3 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat (Common Purposes Land, (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1976 before the District Development and Panchayat Officer. The landowner respondents pleaded that the land did not belong to the Gram Panchayat, nor was it shamlat deh and they were in possession as co-shares and as such, the application was misconceived. The District Development and Panchayat Officer vide order dated November 11, 1983 (Annexure P-2) to the petition, held that as the land had been shown as Mustarka Malkan, it was to be kept for common purposes of the village and, therefore, its management vested in the Gram Panchayat and, accordingly, ordered the eviction. The appeal filed by the landowners was dismissed as time barred by the Joint Director, Panchayat vide order Annexure P-3. The orders Annexures P-2 and P-3 were successfully challenged and the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petitions observed that no land could be reserved under the consolidation scheme for the income of the Gram Panchayat as held by the Supreme Court in Bhagat Ram. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1976) 78 PLR 287. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the Gram Panchayat has filed the present appeals.

The learned counsel for the appellants has primarily argued that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the land had been reserved for the income of the Gram Panchayat was based on a wrong appreciation of the documents on record. He has urged that in the scheme, it had been shown that the land in dispute was a Nala (Water-course) and had been shown as shar-e-am. Learned counsel for the respondent-landowners has, however, produced copies of the jamabandi for the year 1963-64 i.e. after consolidation in which it has been shown with respect to some of the area, that the land had been leased out by the Gram Panchayat to various individuals mentioned therein and has urged that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the land was being leased out for the income of the Gram Panchayat was correct.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records with their assistance.

It does appear to us prima facie from the copies of the jamabandi for the years 1963-64 that at least, some portion of the land does appear to have been leased out by the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of deriving income there from. This finding is also borne out from the order Annexure P-3 in which it has been observed that "the Gram Panchayat is authorised to use income derived from such land for common good of the village community." It is equally clear, however, that the other portions of the land has not been leased out but continues to be in possession of the landowners. We, therefore, feel that it would be appropriate keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case that while allowing the appeals, we remit the cases to respondent No.1, who shall re-examine the entire matter after permitting the parties to produce any evidence or record in support of their respective cases. We further direct that respondent No.1 will render his decision within a period of six months after he receives a copy of this order. The parties are directed, to appear before respondent No.1 on February 23, 1994. Status-quo regarding possession to continue till the decision of Respondent No.1. No costs.