Village Common Lands--Eviction--Encroachment--In respect of ’shamlat deh’ lands procedure contained in the 1961 Act, is to be followed; In the case of ’Jumla Malkan’ lands, the provision of, 1976 Act applies; and In case of encroachments of the gram panchayat lands for eviction to be initiated in accordance with the provisions of the 1976 Act read with the 1973 Act.

S.S. SARON, J.

1. Learned State counsel has placed on record letter No. 233 dated 11.5.2017 issued by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sudhar to the Tehsildar, Raikot relating to demarcation of the land that is alleged to have been encroached upon. The same is taken on record.

2. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India inter-alia alleging that obstruction has been caused on the public street (panchayati gali) originating from Raikot road and running towards Abadi of New Abadi Akalgarh, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana i.e. from the East to West direction for the past more than 40 years by raising a concrete wall six feet in height having length of 159'-6” in front of houses of petitioners No. 1 and 2 and having a width of 5'-6' as depicted in the photographs of the site (Annexure P-4 colly.), the jamabandi for the year 1966-67 (Annexure P-8) and survey plan (Annexure P-12) of the village prepared by the Executive Engineer, Panchayati Raj Public Works (C&M) Division, Ludhiana, which have been placed on record.

3. The petitioner has placed voluminous documents and material on record, which are quite irrelevant. However, what is borne out is that petitioners' allege that land comprised in rectangle No. 34, Khasra No. 19/2/1, 19/1/2 and 18/1 situated in the revenue estate of New Abadi Akalgarh, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana is owned and possessed by the Gram Panchayat and it has been encroached upon by respondents No. 5 & 6. The Halqa Kanungo Sudhar submitted a report dated 30.10.2015 (Annexure P-6) in this regard. It has been alleged that encorachments had been made on the land. The disputed site, it is mentioned, is one karam (5½ feet) wide and seventeen karams (93½ feet) long and is located in khasra No. 18, 19/1 and 19/2 of rectangle No. 34 on the Northern side. It is stated as regards the disputed site, which is 172 feet (31 karams) towards the Western side a concrete wall had been raised. It is stated by the Kanungo that on going through the records, it was revealed that mutation No. 1326 mentions that there is a rasta (passage) of one karam (5½ feet) wide which adjoins rectangle No. 34, Khasra Nos. 18, 19/1 and 19/2 on Northern side and it has a length of 27 karamas along rectangle No. 34, Khasra No. 18 by carving out a supplement of rectangle No. 34, Khasra No. 18/1 measuring 3 marlas; besides, rectangle No. 34, Khasra No. 19/1 having length of 32 karamas and one karam wide supplement to rectangle No. 34, Khasra No. 19/1/2 having an area of four marlas and rectangle No. 34, Khasra No. 19/2 having length of 8 karam and width of one karam supplement to rectangle No. 34, Khasra No. 19/2 by carving out supplement to rectangle No. 34, Khasra No. 19/2/1 with an area of one marla. In this manner, there is total length of 67 karams and width of one karam. It is mentioned that this total area of eight marlas is of nehri khal (canal water course) but the area had come within the abadi (habitation). As such, canal irrigation was not being done and this area was lying vacant, but it had been bifurcated into two parts by raising a concrete wall. It is mentioned that the case inter se the parties was decided by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Jagraon on 30.08.2014, which pertains to land in rectangle No. 34, Khasra No. 19/1/1/2 (4-9) and 19/2/2 (1-11) having an area of six kanals, which was the ownership of Manjit Kaur wife of Rajinder Singh Litt. The decision had been in favour of Manjit Kaur but the disputed khasra numbers i.e. rectangle No. 34, Khasra No. 18/1, 19/1/2 and 19/2/1 were not part of the land included in the said case. Land in rectangle No. 34, Khasra No. 18/1 was lying vacant and on land in Khasra No. 19/1/2 Rajinder Singh Litt was in possession; besides, land in Khasra No. 19/2/1 was also in possession of Rajinder Singh Litt and he had raised a wall on the land in Khasra No. 19/1/2. Therefore, it is the said land from which encroach