Jagir Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

G.R. Majithia, J.—The petitioner has challenged the appellate order of the Joint Director Panchayats, Punjab, exercising the powers of Commissioner dated June 21, 1985, affirming on appeal the order of the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala exercising the powers of Collector, Patiala, dated December 8, 1985, ordering eviction of the petitioner from the disputed land, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Gram Panchayat Dhudir, Tehsil and District Patiala through its Sarpanch filed an application u/s 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short the Act) against the petitioner. Notice of the Application was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner took the plea that he was in possession of the disputed land for over 30 years.

The District Development and Panchayat Officer Patiala exercising the powers of the Collector under the Act held that the Gram Panchayat was the owner of the disputed land and that the petitioner had failed to prove his possession for thirty years as claimed by him. He accordingly ordered his ejectment from the disputed land. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order of the Collector in appeal before the Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab exercising the powers of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala.

It is unfortunate that the Collector and the Commissioner did not appreciate that they had to record a positive finding that the disputed land was Shamlat deh and vested in the Panchayat. The observations in the order of the Collector that the Panchayat is the owner of the disputed land cannot be considered as a finding that the land is shamlat deh and vests in the Panchayat. The impugned order cannot be sustained.

For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition succeeds, the impugned orders are quashed and the case is remitted to the Deputy Director, Panchayats, Patiala, who is exercising the powers of the Collector under the Act, to re-decide the matter in accordance with law. If he finds that the disputed land is shamlat deh and vests in the Panchayat, he can determine the mesne profits payable by the petitioner for the period he remained in unauthorised occupation of the land. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Deputy Director, Panchayats, Patiala on February 3, 1994.