Piara Singh (sin gh (since deceased) through LRs and and another) v. Director, Rura and others Rural Development and Panchayat hayat Department

Judgment

1. 2. 3. 4. Whether date when the judgment is reserved date when the judgment is pronounce ounced date when the judgment is uploaded the judgment is ether only operative part of the ju judgment the full nounced or whether nounced delay, if any of the pronounceme ment, and reasons thereof pronounce pronounce The delay judgment,

28.01.2026 12.02.2026 13.02.2026 Full ncement of full Not applicable HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP CORAM : HO HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPIT HO DEEPAK SIBAL APITA BANERJI Present : Mr Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr Mr. Vishal Sharma (Vasudeva), Ad For respondent No.4-Gram Pancha For a), Advocate, anchayat. LAPITA BANE ANERJI, J. Prayer in the present petition filed Pra n filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution itution of India, inter-alia, is for issuan issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for qu for quashing of order dated Septembe ptember 15, 2004 (Annexure P-2) passed by the D the District Development and Panch Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Hoshiarpur-resp respondent No.3 and order dated Se ted September 13, 2007 passed by the Director, R ctor, Rural Development and Panc Panchayat Department, Punjab exercising the p the powers of Commissioner under t nder the Punjab Village Common SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.13 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.210 of 20 0 of 2008 (O&M) Lands (Regulat egulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter ref ter referred as the “1961 Act”)- respondent No. t No.1. The petitioners have also also prayed for restraining the respondents from ts from dispossessing the petitioner fr oner from the disputed land during the pendency of

ncy of the writ petition/proceedings u ings under Section 11 of the 1961 Act.

2. The land in question is situated in K The ted in Khasra No.452 (15K -13M), village Bora wh which has been shown as ‘Abadi D di Deh’ in the jamabandi for the year 1993-94. According to the petitioners, they , they are in possession of Abadi land for more th ore than 100 years through their foref r forefathers.

3. The Gram Panchayat (GP) filed The iled a petition under Section 7 of the 1961 Act Act before the Collector for ejectme jectment of the original petitioner (since decease eceased). The present petitioners ners are the heirs and representatives tives of the original petitioner. The The Collector vide impugned order dated Se ed September 15, 2004 observed th ved that neither the GP nor the original petition etitioner herein, being a respondent ndent in the petition filed under Section 7 of the of the 1961 Act could produce any do any document qua their title to the disputed land. land. Consequently, he directed the the original petitioner to file an application unde under Section 11 of the 1961 Act f Act for determination of his title within three m ree months before the Court of l t of learned Additional Deputy Commissioner ( ioner (Development)-cum-Collector, H ctor, Hoshiarpur. Furthermore, it was observed t rved that in case the petitioner fail er failed to file a petition under Section 11 of t 1 of the 1961 Act within the stipula stipulated time then it would be deemed that the at the petitioner has no right to owner ownership of the disputed land.

4. The original petitioner The filed an appeal before Commissioner c ioner challenging the impugned order order passed by the Collector but SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.13 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.210 of 20 0 of 2008 (O&M) the same was d was dismissed by the Commissioner sioner on September 13, 2007 by holding that eve hat even though in the jamabandi for di for the year 1993-94 the land was recorded ded as ‘Abadi deh’ but because the the original petitioner did not produce the rev he revenue record to show his owners wnership since January 26, 1950, the Collector’s o tor’s order merited no interference.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Lea itioners submits that since the GP filed the eviction viction petition under Section 7 of the of the 1961 Act, it was incumbent upon the GP to GP to show the disputed land being being ‘Shamlat deh’ vested in the GP. Revenue re nue records unequivocably indicated icated the said land to be ‘Abadi deh’ and the G the GP had admittedly failed to prov prove its ownership before the Collector. There . Therefore, the Collector misdirected rected himself on a proposition of law and erroneo rroneously held that the petitioner had ner had to prove his ownership by filing a petition tition under Section 11 of the 1961 Ac 961 Act instead of holding that the GP who was was seeking eviction of the peti e petitioner from the purported panchayat land t land had to prove its ownership. The . The Commissioner also erred in holding that the at the original petitioner had to prove prove his ownership since January 26, 1950 throug through filing of Section 11 application lication instead of directing the GP to prove its own ts ownership on the disputed land.

6. Mr. Sharma, appears on behalf o Mr half of respondent No.4-GP and submits that the hat the petitioners are trespassers and rs and should be evicted from the disputed land in and in accordance with law.

7. This Court has heard learned co Thi ned counsel for the parties and perused the mat e material on record.

8. Admittedly, the Collector held tha Ad eld that the land in question was within the ‘Aba Abadi deh’ of the village and the pe the petitioners were in continuous SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.13 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.210 of 20 0 of 2008 (O&M) possession for n for more than 100 years. Howev However, he also held that the petitioners had s had to prove that they were own re owners of the land by filing application unde n under Section 11 of the 1961 Act. T Act. The said order passed by the Collector was u was upheld by the Commissioner v ioner vide impugned order dated September 13, 2 r 13, 2007 without application of inde f independent mind. This Court is of the view that w that both the impugned orders suffer suffer from incorrect appreciation of law because ecause the GP had instituted proceed roceedings against the petitioner under Section 7 tion 7 of the 1961 Act and the onus t onus to prove the disputed land to be ‘Shamlat De t Deh’ was on the GP and not on t t on the petitioner. The Collector erroneously dire ly directed the petitioner to file proce proceedings under Section 11 of the 1961 Act wh Act when the carriage of proceedings dings was on the GP to prove the same as it had it had sought eviction of the petition etitioners from the disputed land vested in GP.

9. The Commissioner also misdirec The isdirected himself by failing to correct the error e error of law on the face of record by cord by the Collector. Section 101 of the Indian Ev ian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follow follows: “Se Section 101 Burden of proof: Whoever desires any Court legal right or liability dependent which he asserts, must prove that person is bound to prove the exis that the burden of proof lies on that ourt to give judgment as to any dent on the existence of facts that those facts exists. When a existence of any fact, it is said that person.” The said section is pari materia The teria with Section 104 of the Bhartiya Sakshy Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

10. This Court is of the view that the a Thi at the aforesaid proposition of law has not been app en appreciated by both the authorities orities. A beneficial reference may be made to the f o the following judgments of Apex Co ex Court: SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.13 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.210 of 20 0 of 2008 (O&M)

11. “R Rangammal v. Kuppuswami a mi and another” reported in (2011) 12 Supre upreme Court Cases 220, the Suprem Supreme Court has held as under: “x “xxx 37 It is further well settled that 37. basis of the pleadings of the cont in the suit before the trial court written statement and the nucleu and the contesting case of the def emerges out of that. This basic pr m missed not only by the trial court by the first appellate court whic the High Court. that a suit has to be tried on the contesting parties which is filed court in the form of plaint and cleus of the case of the plaintiff e defendant in the form of issues ic principle, seems to have been ourt in this case but consistently hich has been compounded by

38. Thus, we are of the view, 38 which this appeal arises had been m missing the basic principle that th the basis of the pleading of the co Section 101 of the Evidence Ac Se order to determine on whom the issues which have been determine ew, that the whole case out of been practically made a mess by at the suit should be decided on he contesting parties after which Act would come into play in the burden falls for proving the ined. xxx” x [Emphasis Supplied]

12. In “Union of India and others v. V In “ v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited ited and others” reported in (201 (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 269, it was opin s opined that the trite law was that in a hat in a suit for declaration of title, the burden alwa n always lies with the plaintiffs to mak to make out and establish its clear case. The releva relevant extract thereof is reproduced duced hereinafter: “ “xxx 15 15. It is trite law that, in a suit burden always lies on the plaintiff clear case for granting such a de if any, of the case set up by the ground to grant relief to the plaint xxx” x suit for declaration of title, the intiff to make out and establish a declaration and the weakness, the defendants would not be a laintiff.

13. In the recent judgment of “Smriti In t mriti Debbarma (dead) through legal representa sentatives v. Prabha Ranjan Debbar bbarma and others” reported in (2023) 19 Supr Supreme Court Cases 782, it has t has been held that a person in SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.13 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.210 of 20 0 of 2008 (O&M) possession of th n of the land exercising ordinary righ ry rights of ownership peacefully has a legal righ al right against the entire world exce except the rightful owner and a decree of posse possession could not be passed in fa in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that the the defendants could not fully es lly establish their right, title and interest in the su the suit property. The burden of proo of proof to establish a title lies on the plaintiff bein eing the party who asserts the exis he existence of a state of things on the basis of whi of which relief is claimed. The weakn weakness of the defendant’s case could not be a ju be a justification to decree the suit. Th uit. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgm after: judgment are reproduced hereinafter: “xxx “xx In the above factual backg 36. 36. succeed, she has to establish that Schedule 'A' property, and consequ Sch of possession. The defendants can the plaintiff has established a bett Schedule ‘A’ property. A person i Sch assumed character as the owner, a ordinary rights of ownership, ha entire world except the rightful ow cannot be passed in favour of the Def Defendants 1 to 12 have not been right, title and interest in the S defendants, being in possession, and save their possession, unless dispossess them has a better le ownership or entitlement to possess ackground, for the plaintiff to that she has a legal title to the sequently, is entitled to a decree cannot be dispossessed unless better title and rights over the on in possession of land in the er, and exercising peaceably the , has a legal right against the l owner. A decree of possession the plaintiff on the ground that een able to fully establish their he Schedule 'A' property. The would be entitled to protect nless the person who seeks to r legal right in the form of ssession.

37. 37. The burden of proof to esta case lies upon the plaintiff as this b asserts the existence of a particula of w of which she claims relief. This is m 101 of the Evidence Act, which st 101 the fact rests with party who s affirmative and not on the party w may not be universal and has ex background of the present case applicable. In terms of Section 102 parties fail to adduce evidence, t proof, no doubt shifts and the shift in the evaluation of evidence, but in t establish a title in the present his burden lies on the party who cular state of things on the basis s is mandated in terms of Section h states that burden of proving ho substantially asserts in the ty which is denying it. This rule s exceptions, but in the factual case, the general principle is 102 of the Evidence Act, if both ce, the suit must fail. Onus of shifting is a continuous process but this happens when in a suit SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.13 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.210 of 20 0 of 2008 (O&M) for title and possession, the plainti high degree of probability to shift t the absence of such evidence, the plaintiff and can be discharged on title. The weakness of the defence decree the suit. aintiff has been able to create a hift the onus on the defendant. In the burden of proof lies on the d only when he is able to prove nce cannot be a justification to [Emphasis supplied] xx”

14. In view of the discussion herein a In erein above, the impugned orders dated Septemb ptember 15, 2004 (Annexure P-2) 2) and September 13, 2007 (Annexure P-3) 3) are set-aside. The GP-responde pondent No.4 will, however, be at liberty to institu institute proceedings for removal of val of illegal encroachments from the panchayat la ayat land after establishing their title in title in accordance with law.

15. With the aforesaid directions, C Wi ons, CWP No.210 of 2008 is disposed of.

16. Connected application(s), if any, s Con any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (DEEPAK SIB DGE JUDGE SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI) (LA JUDGE FEBRUARY Shalini 12, 2026 Whether speakin Whether reporta speaking/reasoned: reportable: Yes/No Ye Yes/No Ye SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.13 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document