Mohinder Singh vs Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur

H.S. Bedi, J.—(Oral) The present petition has been filed, challenging the orders Annexures P.3 and P.5 whereby the land which was statedly under cultivating possession of the petitioner had been held to vest in the Gram Panchayat respondent No. 3 and the Collector vide his order Annexure P.3 passed under Section 4 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, after considering the relevant evidence produced by the parties has held that the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant on the land in question and as such liable to be evicted therefrom. Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, who vide Annexure P. 5 dismissed the same. The solitary ground taken into account by the Commissioner was that as per the Jamabandi for the year 197072, the land was shown as being owned by the Gram Panchayatrespondent No. 3 and it was on this basis that the Commissionerrespondent No. 1, ignored the earlier Jamabandis produced which showed the land in question as belonging to the rightholders or proprietors of the village. The reasoning given by the Commissioner in rather a cryptic manner, to my mind, is not sustainable It was incumbent upon him to base his findIng on the basis of the revenue record placed before him by the parties but at the same time he should have clarified in what situation the subsequent entries in favour of the Gram Panchayat had been made. Admittedly, no such finding has been recorded.

In para 10 of the petition, the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to letter dated September 22, 1961 which is said to have been taken into account while sanctioning the mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said letter could not have formed the basis for making a change in the revenue record and the change, if any, should have been made on the basis of some independent evidence. The aforesaid averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in para 10 of the petition have not been denied in a specific manner by the respondentGram Panchayat in its reply. For this reason, I am of the view that Annexure P.3, itself, is not sustainable.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged that as a dispute with regard to title exists between the parties, he should be permitted to raise such a dispute under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. I am, however, of the view that this is a matter for the authorities under this Act to determine on an application made to them.

For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders Annexures P3 and P.5 are quashed and the matter is remitted for fresh decision to the Collector, respondent No. 2. The parties are directed to appear before him on 8.5.1992.