Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dilbagh Singh vs Assistant Collector on 19 August, 2010
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
C.R.No.5194 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH.
C.R.No.5194 of 2010
Date of decision:19.8.2010
Dilbagh Singh
...Petitioner
vs
Assistant Collector, Ist Grade Jind and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG.
---
Present: Mr.,K.S.MalikAdvocate, for the petitioners.
--
Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral)
Vide this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is seeking directions to respondents No.1 and 2 for execution of the order dated 18.2.2009 passed under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for ejectment of respondents No. 3 to 5 by execution pending in the Court of Assistant Collector, Jind.
As per the averments petitioner filed an application under section 7 of the Act, which was allowed on 18.2.2009 and an ejectment order was passed by respondent No.1 against respondents No. 3 to 5. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application for compliance of the aforesaid order, which is pending and no specific order has been passed by respondents No. 1 and 2 for ejectment of respondents No. 3 to 5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the various zimni orders passed by respondent No. 1 and has submitted that the C.R.No.5194 of 2010 2 petitioner was being harassed by respondents No. 1 and 2 who were under the pressure of respondents No. 3 to 5 and the Gram Panchayat-respondent No.6 was not taking any action and, therefore, a direction be issued to respondents No. 1 and 2 for execution of the order dated 18.2.2009 (Annexure P1).
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 18.2.2009 and various zimni orders reproduced in the petition.
A perusal of the order Annexure P1 shows that vide aforesaid order respondent No.1 has come to the conclusion that Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land in dispute which has been encroached upon by the respondents to the extent of 2 marlas of land pertaining to khasra No.2038. Ejectment order against respondents No. 3 to 5 were also passed and Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Julana, was directed to get the possession of the land in dispute from the encroachers and deliver the same to the panchayat. In view of the order Annexure P1 nothing remained to be ordered by respondents No. 1 and 2 and it is for the Block Development and Panchayat Officer or the Gram Panchayat to take the possession of the encroached land from respondents No. 3 to 5 in accordance with law.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.
( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge August 19, 2010 rk