Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pritam Singh vs Joint Director on 25 September, 2013
Bench: Jasbir Singh, G.S. Sandhawalia
CWP No. 8768 of 1987 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
CWP No. 8768 of 1987
Date of decision : 25.9.2013
Pritam Singh ........Petitioner
Vs.
Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab and others .........Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia
Present:- Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Rachna Slatia, Advocate, for the petitioner
None for the respondents
---
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to an order dated 20.5.1985 (P-3), vide which application filed under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Gram Panchayat, was disposed of and land in dispute was ordered to be sold to the petitioner.
Further challenge is to an order dated 24.8.1987 (P-4), allowing appeal, filed by respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat.
As per facts on record, the Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Act, for ejectment of the petitioner from a part of Plot No.45. It was stated that the said plot is situated next to the house of the petitioner and he had occupied part of it. The parties were Kumar Ashwani given opportunity to lead evidence. A specific stand was taken by the 2013.10.11 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 8768 of 1987 -2- petitioner that he had purchased that land through respectables of the village. To say so, document Annexure P-2 dated 10.4.1979 was placed on record. It was further said that to the land in dispute, access is not available because, in between Plot No.45 and the road, he has raised construction.
The Collector, vide order dated 20.5.1985, came to a conclusion that the land in dispute is Shamlat deh land and was reserved for common purposes. By noting that the plot has no access, it was ordered to be sold in favour of the petitioner.
Qua finding given against the petitioner, he did not file any appeal. The Gram Panchayat went in appeal, which was accepted vide order dated 24.8.1987. Relevant portion of the order reads thus :-
"I have heard both the parties in detail and have gone through the record carefully. The land in dispute is a part of Plot No.45. The lower court had asked for a report from the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Banga regarding the nature of this land. He has submitted vide his report dated 5.10.1984 the land in dispute is shamlat. The present respondent is in un-authorised possession of the same. He has also informed on 12.10.1984 after this report that the domestic Panchayat had sold this land to the respondent for ` 6200/-. The Gram Panchayat, which is enacted under Section 6 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1942 is the only corporate body and thus Panchayat is the owner of the shamlat land under Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The domestic Panchayat has no existence. The document, even if admitted to be correct, has no legal value. The document has been executed on behalf of few individuals of the village and has therefore, no Kumar Ashwani 2013.10.11 14:41 legal importance. Besides this, Sarpanch Sh. Tarshem Singh I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 8768 of 1987 -3- has submitted that his signatures on this document are forged. He never signed on any such document. The case had been remanded to the lower court for further investigation in the matter. This document has not been proved.
Sh. Teja Singh, Tarshem Singh, Bakshish Singh, witnesses who were produced in the lower court by the appellant had clearly stated that the drain water of 30/40 houses comes on this land. The respondent has encroached upon this land and is in un-authorised possession of the same. Besides this, Jaga Singh, witness has been produced by the respondent. He has also stated that the drain water of the village passes through this land from the three sides. The respondent did not produce any other witness. It is clear from these statements that the land in dispute is used for common purpose of the village and the Gram Panchayat is the owner of this land.
The next argument of the respondent is that there is no approach to this land. This cannot be used by the Gram Panchayat. The argument has no force. Sh. Gurmail Singh who is the general attorney of the respondent has clearly stated in his statement dated 26.11.1984 that the land in dispute adjoins the road. The land which adjoins the road cannot be said to have any approach. The land being adjoining the road cannot be approached by the general public."
It was specifically noted that the land in dispute is a part of Shamlat deh land and is being used for common purposes. It was further said that dirty water of the village falls in Plot No.45. Said finding is also supported by the contents of a document Annexure P-2 dated 10.4.1979, on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner to say that land was purchased by him.
Kumar Ashwani2013.10.11 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 8768 of 1987 -4-
At the time of arguments, it was vehemently contended that once the petitioner had purchased the land in dispute on 10.4.1979, he cannot be ejected from the site in dispute. Further, it is stated that access, to the land in dispute, is available only through the house of the petitioner and as such, order passed by the Collector, directing sale of land to the petitioner, was perfectly justified.
We have heard counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of the Gram Panchayat.
Perusal of document Annexure P-2 shows that the land in dispute was sold to the petitioner by some Bhaichara Panchayat, which has no value in the eyes of law. The land was not sold by the duly constituted Gram Panchayat to the petitioner. Furthermore, from the document in question, it is apparent that the land was being used for collection of dirty water of the village. If that is so, how that land can be sold to the petitioner.
Further contention of counsel for the petitioner, that access to the land in dispute is not available, is also devoid of any force. It has specifically been noticed by the Appellate Authority that as per statement made by Gurmail Singh, General Power of Attorney of the petitioner, land falling in Plot No. 45 abuts the main road.
Perusal of the site plan also indicates the same. Portion shown in Yellow colour, between the main road and part of Plot No.45, shown in Pink colour, is the encroached portion by the petitioner. House of the petitioner is situated towards upper side of the land in dispute and it makes no sense that he will purchase land measuring only 16 feet in width, Kumar Ashwani 2013.10.11 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 8768 of 1987 -5- falling in between main road and Plot No.45. There is nothing on record to show that said small-long stretch of land is ownership of the petitioner.
In view of above, this writ petition is dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge (G.S. Sandhawalia) Judge 25.9.2013 Ashwani Kumar Ashwani 2013.10.11 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document