Ranjit Singh, J.

1. The issue raised in the present petition is in regard to the locus of respondent No. 3 to file an application seeking eviction of the petitioner from the land of Gram Panchayat, which was allegedly in an unauthorised possession of the petitioner.

2. On an application filed by respondent No.3, under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), notice was issued to the petitioner as well as Gram Panchayat. The petitioner raised a plea that respondent No.3 had no right to file an application under Section 7 of the Act and that he was a co-owner of Khasra No. 922 and 923 where his father had constructed a house. On the request of respondent No.3, a Local Commissioner was appointed, who submitted his report on 8.8.2005. The petitioner filed objections against this report and mainly contended that he had constructed a house for the last 60 years. The Assistant Collector came to the conclusion that the land in dispute was in the ownership of Gram Panchayat and was reserved for gair mumkin chappar. As per the demarcation report, the petitioner had encroached upon the disputed land i.e. 6 marlas by raising construction. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner is also dismissed. The Commissioner also observed that the petitioner and the Sarpanch were conniving with each other. As per the Commissioner, the Sarpanch should have defended on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, who not only failed to defend but filed reply favouring the petitioner. The petitioner has accordingly impugned these orders through the present writ petition and has primarily raised submission that respondent No.3 was not competent to file this application under Section 7 of the Act and that such application was not maintainable.

3. While issuing notice of motion, no stay was granted in favour of the petitioner. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the official respondents. By way of preliminary submissions, it is pointed out that the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat was in connivance with the petitioner and that is why he did not take any step to get the Gram Panchayat land vacated. Respondent No.3, being resident of the village, had filed this application, which was reserved for gair mumkin chappar, being used for common purpose of all the villagers. Accordingly, it is prayed that no interference may be called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The action of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer in directing action against the Sarpanch is also justified. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. By referring to the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, counsel for the petitioner submits that only Panchayat or an officer duly authorised in this behalf by the State Government by general or a special order can file application before the Collector under this Section. Section provides that the Panchayat and the officer duly authorised by the State Government can file the application before the Collector for putting the Panchayat into the possession of a land or other immovable property in shamlat deh of the village. Ordinarily, the persons mentioned in the Section may be held entitled to file the application under the section, but this provision may not fully regulate those cases where Panchayat or a person authorised to file application are seemed to have connived with the person in illegal or unauthorised possession of the land or immovable property. In other words, this provision cannot be read to mean that the persons mentioned therein alone would have locus to file application seeking eviction and removal of encroachment. This conclusion may be inescapable when the provisions of Section 7 are read with the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. These two Sections apparently regulate and operate in the same field. Proviso to Section 7 can be referred to seek support in this regard. It is provided in the proviso that if after receipt of the application and