Avtar Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 11. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Ms.Rupinder K. Thind, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A. S. Jattana, Addl.A.G.…
Judgment
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Ms.Rupinder K. Thind, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A. S. Jattana, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners seek quashing of order dated 9.10.2009 (Annexure P-2) and an earlier order dated 8.8.2008 (Annexure P-1), directing their eviction from the land in dispute. Respondent-Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961 against the petitioners by pleading that the land occupied by them is recorded as Garmumkin pond, which was being used for collecting waste water of the village and the same has been encroached upon by the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6117 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: petitioners. The Panchayat had relied upon a Jamabandi for the year 2004-05.
The petitioners appeared and contested the case, pleading that the land was recorded as Jumla Hasab Rasad Rajba and the Gram Panchayat had no concern with the same. The plea further was that there was no pond on this land. As per the petitioners, they were in possession of this land for the last 40 years, as per their share in the Mustarka Khata. The petitioners further pleaded that this land was not reserved for common purposes. On the basis of evidence led by the respective parties, Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector, Ajnala, ordered eviction of the petitioners on 8.8.2008. The petitioners primarily relied on some oral evidence, which was not considered sufficient by the authority whereas the Panchayat had relied upon documentary evidence to prove its case. Even Nishandehi had been conducted by the Patwari and it was recorded that Ranjit Singh son of Teja Singh was in possession of Khata Khatuni No.170/421, who was never impleaded as a party.
The Collector, thus, came to the conclusion that Gram Panchayat was the owner and had used this land for common purposes. The petitioners were found to be in illegal possession. They were also found to have encroached upon the land and so were ordered to be ejected. The petitioners filed an appeal against the same, which was also rejected by the Commissioner vide order dated 9.10.2009, Annexure P-2. The Commissioner found that in jamabandi for the year 2004-05, the disputed land is recorded as Jumla Hasab Rasad Rajba and there is a gairmarusi pond on the land. As per the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6117 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: consolidation, this land was under the management of the Gram Panchayat. Finding accordingly is that the land was being used for common purposes and the Civil Court did not have any jurisdiction to entertain any such case with regard to Panchayat land. The Commissioner accordingly found that the Collector had arrived at a right conclusion.
Finding that the petitioners were in illegal possession of the land, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioners have not been able to show any record to prove their right or title to the suit land. Panchayat was able to show its title on the basis of revenue record. There is no material on record or cause made out to interfere in the impugned findings recorded by the authorities, which are just, fair and reasonable. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. August 16, 2011 khurmi (RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961 — s. 7.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 16 Aug 2011. The bench was RANJIT SINGH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.