The court emphasized the importance of providing reliable evidence to rebut presumptions based on revenue records and upheld the authority of revenue authorities to pass eviction orders in cases of unauthorized possession.

JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J. - Case has been heard through video conferencing on account of COVID-19 Pandemic.

2. The respondent No.6-Bharat Bhushan filed an ejectment petition against the petitioners and respondent No.7 under Section 7 of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'Act of 1961') on 21.7.2016 (Anneuxre P-2). The petitioners submitted reply (Annexure P-4) thereto. After adjudicating upon the controversy, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Indri, by his order dated 12.2.2018 (Annexure P-5) allowed the petition and gave directions that the petitioners and other encroachers be ejected from the land bearing Khasra No.26//14, 23/2 and 47.

3. Aggrieved by the order passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Indri dated 12.2.2018 (Annexure P-5), the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Collector, Karnal. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed by the Collector, Karnal, after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 22.10.2018 (Annexure P-7). The petitioners being dissatisfied with the said two orders i.e. Anneuxre P-5 and Anneuxre P-7, filed a revision petition impugning the same before the Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal. The revision petition filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by an order dated 9.3.2020 (Annexure P-9). The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners impugning the aforesaid orders passed by the different revenue authorities.

4. The writ petition has been contested by respondents No.1 to 5 & 7. Replies on behalf of the contesting respondents were filed.

5. We have heard the counsel for the parties.

6. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the definition of 'Shamilat Deh' as provided in Section 2(g) of the Act of 1961 (as applicable to Haryana). The counsel for the petitioners contended that as per exclusion clause of Section 2(g) of Act of 1961, "Abadi Deh" is excluded from the definition of 'Shamilat Deh'. The learned counsel further contended that the land in question bearing Khasra No.26//14 regarding which respondent No.7-Raj Kumar filed petition (Annexure P-2) under Section 7 of the Act of 1961 was recorded as 'Abadi Deh', in the revenue record. The counsel for the petitioners referred to Jamabandi for the year 2015-16 (Annexure P-1) to substantiate his argument.

7. The counsel for the petitioners further argued that even in the petition (Annexure P-2), the petitioners therein specifically pleaded that land bearing Khasra No.26//14(6-7) is 'Gair Mumkin Abadi', thus making it clear that the land in question is 'Abadi Deh'. However the revenue authorities while passing the impugned orders failed to notice the said fact. The learned counsel further argued that the subject land being 'Abadi Deh', the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Indri had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter under Section 7 of the Act 1961. So the impugned order (Annexure P-5) passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Indri was illegal and non-est in law. The subsequent orders (Annexure P-7 and Annexure P-9) passed by the revenue authorities whereby impugned order (Annexure P-5) was upheld, are also liable to be set aside, being illegal.

8. The State counsel while supporting the orders passed by the revenue authorities, contended that the land in question bearing Khasra No.26//14 is not part of 'Abadi Deh'. The State counsel while referring to Jamabandi for the year 1965-66 (Annexure R-7/1) submitted that the said land was recorded as 'Banjar Kadim Thur' owned by the Gram Panchayat in the revenue record. It was further contended that later on the petitioners in collusion with the revenue Patwari got changed the entries of the land in question as 'Gair Mumkin Abadi' and then started raising illegal construction therein. The petitioners being trespassers were rightly ordered to be evicted, by the revenue authorities. It is further contended that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

9. We have considered submissions made by the parties. Secti