Punjab-Haryana High Court
Leela Ram And Anr. vs Gram Panchayat And Ors. on 18 August, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1997)117PLR723
Author: Iqbal Singh
Bench: Iqbal Singh
JUDGMENT N.C. Jain, J.
1. This judgment of ours would dispose of two Civil Writ Petitions No.13708 of 1996 ad 16304 of 1996. The order under challenge is common in both these petitions and the point involved is also the same. The Gram Panchayat respondent No.1 filed an application for eviction against the petitioners on the ground that they are in unauthorised occupation of the Gram Panchayat land. The inhabitants of the village also filed similar application. The application Under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Narnaul, Against the order of the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, the inhabitants of the village filed an appeal before the Collector whereas no appeal was filed by the Gram Panchayat. In appeal the orders of the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Narnaul were affirmed. The Cram Panchayat did not choose to file any revision petition before the Commissioner, whereas the inhabitants of the village filed revision petition before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon. The Commissioner reversed the order of the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade and Collector and ordered eviction of the petitioners.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has at the very, outset submitted before us that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition against the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector. It was vehementaly argued that the order of Collector in eviction proceedings is final For appreciating the precise submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is necessary to have a look at the bare provisions of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as have been amended. It has remained undisputed before us that proceedings for eviction were filed under the amended provisions. The amended provisions of the Act are re-produced as under:-
"Section 7(1) : An Assistant Collector of the first grade having jurisdiction in the village may, either suo motu or on an application made to him by a Panchayat or an Inhabitant of the village or the Block Development and Panchayat Officer or Social Education and Panchayat Officer, or any other Officer authorised by the Block Development and panchayat Officer, after making such summary enquiry as he may deem fit and in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed, eject any person who is in wrongful or unauthorised possession of the land or other immovable property in the Shamlat Deh of that village which vests or is deemed to have been vested in the Panchayat under this Act and put the Panchayat in possession thereof and for so doing the Assistant Collector of the first grade may exercise the powers of a revenue Court in relation to the execution of a decree for possession of land under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.
Provided that if in any such proceedings the question of title as raised and proved prima facie on the basis of documents that the question of title is really involved, Assistant Collector of first grade shall record a finding to that effect and first decide the question of title in the manner laid down hereinafter.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Section 13-B . . . (AS IN HARYANA) APPEAL AND REVISION :-
(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Collector of the first grade may, within a period of thirty days from the date of order passed under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 7 prefer an appeal to the Collector in such form and manner, as may be prescribed, and the Collector may after hearing the appeal, confirm, vary or reverse the order as he deems fit;
Provided that no such appeal shall lie unless the amount of penalty, if any, imposed under Sub-Section (2) of Section 7, is deposited with the Collector.
(2) The Commissioner may, suo motu, "or on an application made to him by any person aggrieved by an order passed under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 7 at any time," call for the record of any proceedings, pending before or orders passed any authority subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself, as to the legality or propriety of the proceedings or order and pass such order, in relation thereto as he may deem fit.
Provided that no order adversely affecting any person shall be passed unless he has been afforded an opportunity of being heard."
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we are of the view that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners has got force. Section 13-B(2) clearly envisages that Commissioner can entertain the revision petition suo motu or on an application filed by the aggrieved party if the case has been decided under the amended proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act. The proviso of Sub-section (1) clearly lays down that if question of title is involved in a case, it should be decided under proviso. In other words if no question of title is involved, the proviso would not apply and in such a situation the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to act Under Section 13-B(2) shall stand excluded whether he was to act suo motu or on the application of an aggrieved party. As a necessary corollary, it can safely be held that in eviction proceedings the order of Collector in appeal would be final whereas the Commissioner would have the power to entertain the revision petition, if question of title is raised and proved prima facie on the basis of documents and this is the mandate of the proviso. This is the only interpretation which can be placed on combined reading of Section 7 and Section 13-B of the Act. No other interpretation in our view is possible. If the legislature had intended to vest powers in the Commissioner to entertain the revision petition even in cases of eviction of unauthorised occupants, there was no obstacle in its way to either make a specific provision in this regard or manifest its intention by adding another proviso.
4. In the present case admittedly no question of title was raised by the petitioners and therefore inhabitants of the village were dis-entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commissioner Under Section 13-B(2). They could have filed the revision petition only if the petitioners has raised the question of title when they were sought to be evicted as unauthorised occupants.
5. For the reasons recorded above, these writ petitions are allowed and the order of Commissioner is set aside. Since the inhabitants of the village have chosen wrong forum, their right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India shall remain intact. If another writ petition is filed the inhabitants of the village would naturally be entitled to claim the benefit of time which they spent before the Commissioner. With these observations the writ petitions are allowed.
6. There is no order as to costs.