Tika Ram vs Gram Panchayat and Others

S.C. Malte, J.—This writ petition has arisen out of proceedings u/s 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter briefly referred as the Act): The Gram Panchayat filed an application against the petitioner, and contended that he has encroached upon a portion of the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner raised the contention that the area which is said to have been encroached by him, belongs to him. Thus the question of title arose. The papers before me indicate that the parties were allowed to lead evidence. The Assistant Collector, before whom the case was taken up at the trial stage, found that the boundaries as shown in the sale deed produced by the present petitioner to establish his ownership, do not tally with the area which is stated to have been encroached. In order to arrive at that conclusion he considered the report of the Local Commissioner Vis-a-vis the boundaries given in the sale deeds produced by the petitioner in support of his claim of title. The Assistant Collector, however, did not clarify which of the four boundaries of the sale deed of the property do not tally. The Assistant Collector ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the area which, according to him, was proved to have been encroached upon.

Against that decision the petitioner filed appeal before the Collector. The Collector observed that two boundaries of the sale deeds mentioned therein did not tally with the land in dispute as there was difference of area. He also took into consideration the report of the Local Commissioner to arrive at the conclusion that the land in dispute did not belong to the petitioner. The subsequent part of his judgment indicates that, he took into consideration a map Ex.A-2, and found that certain area shown by alphabetical letters was an area encroached upon. The counsel for the respondent had a certified copy of the said map Ex.A-2 which was relied upon by the Collector. On perusal of that map, I find that two pieces of land of irregular shape described by alphabetical letters'' are shown to have been encroached upon by the petitioner. That portion is shown in the red ink. To the east of that portion, there is an area shown in yellow colour which is said to be road available. The red ink portion mentioned above is said to be the part of that road. The counsel for the petitioner claims that the whole area including the red and yellow portion shown in map Ex. A2 is the property belonging to him. In support of that he had placed today a xerox copy of certified map obtained by him from the village revenue officer.

It, therefore, clearly appears that in the summary proceedings initiated u/s 7 of the Act since the question of title arose, the remedy available to the petitioner was to file a petition under the old provision of Section 13-A, and get an adjudication. Such a petition is required to be filed within a period of limitation prescribed therein. The period of limitation in that case was five years from the commencement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Haryana Amendment Act, 1980. It also appears that this Section 13A as it stood in 1974, was amended, and thereafter it was substituted by Haryana Act No. 2 of 1981. Such frequent changes in the procedural aspect is to be taken into consideration. The present position seems to be that, as per Section 7 of the Act, in the amended form, empowers the Assistant Collector to decide the question of title by following certain procedure under Civil Procedure Code. Such powers can be exercised if a prima facie case is spelt out to show that there is serious question of title involved in the case. The procedural labyrinth thus created due to the repeated changes in the procedural matter has left the litigants in a precarious position when, after more than one and a half decade, they are confronted with the argument that the procedural remedy should have been availed of by filing the suit within a particular time. This matter had been admitted on 23.8.1982. Now in 1997 the position is that the Assistant Collector while considering the question of encroachment would also be entitled to adjudicate the question of title, as mentioned above. In this case I find that the map on which the reliance has been placed by the lower authority, does not say that the yellow portion which was shown as a road in that map, was also a portion encroached upon by the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner came with a specific case that the whole portion marked as road in yellow and red colour in the map has been purchased by him long before. In support of that he has placed before me a xerox copy of certified map now obtained by him from village record which was maintained officially.

Under these circumstances, I am left with no other alternative but to remand the case to the lower authority to consider the question of title to the property by following the procedure as laid down in Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as amended in Haryana State). The lower authority will afford opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence. The evidence led so far shall form the part of the record. The lower authorities will expedite the hearing of the case. Matter remanded to the Assistant Collector, Gohana.