The central legal point established in the judgment is that the authority to seek eviction is determined by the ownership and classification of the land, as per the Land Revenue Act.

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.

Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.7.1997 (Annexure P-1), whereby appeal of respondent No.2 filed against eviction order dated 7.5.1996 (Annexure P-9) was allowed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot-respondent No.1, setting aside the eviction order, holding that since petitioner-Gram Panchayat was not the owner of the suit land, it had no authority to seek eviction of respondent No.2.

2. Notice of motion was issued and respondent No.2 was restrained from alienating the land in dispute. Written statement was filed by respondent No.2. Thereafter, writ petition was admitted for regular hearing, vide order dated 10.8.1999 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. As per own showing of the petitioner vide Annexure P-2, land in question was recorded as Shamlat Deh Hassab Rassad Jar Khewat, which was undoubtedly, the ownership of proprietory body of the village. Petitioner-Gram Panchayat has nothing to do with such kind of land. This was the strong reason that neither there was any resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat for leasing out this land to respondent No.2, nor there was any rent receipt. In fact, in numerous revenue documents produced on record by the petitioner-Gram Panchayat itself, including Annexures P-5 and P-6, respondent No.2 has been recorded in cultivating possession as Gair Marusi. Again, in the column of remarks in both these documents (Annexures P-5 and P-6), possession of respondent No.2 was shown as without any rent in his own right.

5. The above said material fact would make it crystal clear that land in question had never been the ownership of petitioner-Gram Panchayat. Such kind of land which had been admittedly recorded as Shamlat Deh Hassab Rassad Jar Khewat would never fall within the definition of public premises. Once the land was not falling within the definition of public premises, no eviction application would be maintainable at the instance of Gram Panchayat. However, since the Collector misdirected himself in completely misreading and misunderstanding the scope of the above said material aspect the matter, the eviction order dated 7.5.1996 (Annexure P-9) was rightly set aside by the learned appellate authority, i.e. Commissioner Faridkot Division, by passing the impugned order dated 24.7.1997 (Annexure P-1) and the same deserves to be upheld.

6. Before passing the impugned order, Commissioner, Faridkot Division, recorded cogent findings, which have been found based on sound reasons. Relevant observations made by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, which deserve to be noted here, read as under:-

"The revenue record cited in this appeal and lower court, the fact that the forefathers of appellant were in possession since before 1958. This fact has been concealed by the Gram Panchayat. Gulabgarh while initiating proceedings before the Collector, for the eviction of appellant. It is, untenable that the appellant came into possession just a year ago from the date of filing application dated 12.11.1994. In a similar case filed by this Panchayat-respondent before the Collector (DD&PO) Bhatinda against Harinder Singh s/o Gurdev Singh s/o Bachan Singh of Village Gulabgarh, decided on 16.3.1992 the collector, has dismissed the application holding that respondent has no right to evict the respondent. The available record discussed above implies that the forefathers of appellant were in possession and he inherited the possession from them, so the fact that appellant is in unauthorised possession is untenable. Therefore, I do no find any substance in the impugned order and I accept the present appeal and set aside the impugned order, in the light of observations recorded in the foregoing paragraph of this order. Record of this case be sent to the quarter concerned along with copy of this order, after the compliance. This court file be consigned in