Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Lisa Gill, Ritu Tagore, JJ.
Dev Raj & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 37677 of 2019 (O&M) and Civil Writ Petition No. 5549 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 09-11-2022
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act - Allotment of Plots - Section 7 of the Act - 1961 - [Dev Raj and others v. State of Punjab and others] - [Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961] - The court discussed the legality of the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act, the authority's obligation to conduct proper demarcation, and the entitlement of the Gram Panchayat to take action for eviction if the petitioners were found in possession of land in excess of the allotted area. The court set aside the notice and directed the Deputy Commissioner to ensure demarcation of the allotted land within six weeks, allowing for eviction if the petitioners were found in possession of excess land.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed they were allotted plots and sought to quash a notice issued under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The respondent-Gram Panchayat had filed petitions seeking eviction of the petitioners from the plots, which were earlier decided in favor of the petitioners. The petitioners argued that the subsequent notice and petition were illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act was not sustainable and set it aside. It directed the Deputy Commissioner to ensure demarcation of the allotted land and allowed for eviction if the petitioners were found in possession of excess land. The court did not address the issue of a petitioner who had not deposited the amount due.
Issues: Legality of the notice under Section 7 of the Act, obligation to conduct proper demarcation, and entitlement of the Gram Panchayat to take action for eviction if the petitioners were found in possession of land in excess of the allotted area.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act was not sustainable without proper demarcation and set it aside. It directed the Deputy Commissioner to ensure demarcation of the allotted land and allowed for eviction if the petitioners were found in possession of excess land.
Final Decision: The court disposed of both writ petitions, setting aside the notice and directing the Deputy Commissioner to ensure demarcation of the allotted land within six weeks, allowing for eviction if the petitioners were found in possession of excess land.
JUDGMENT
Lisa Gill, J. - This order shall dispose of CWP No.37677 of 2019 (Dev Raj and others v. State of Punjab and others) and CWP No.5549 of 2020 (Harpreet Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others) which are taken up together for hearing on request and with consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners in both the abovenoted writ petitions claim that they were allotted plots measuring 300 sq. yards at different points of time in the year(s) 2002, 2004 and 2005. They further pray for quashing of notice dated 18.12.2019 and subsequent notice dated 31.01.2020 being additionally challenged in CWP No.5549 of 2020.
For the sake of convenience facts are being extracted from CWP No.37677 of 2019.
3. It is submitted that respondent-Gram Panchayat had earlier filed petitions under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking eviction of the petitioners from the plots in question. The said petitions were decided vide separate orders of even date i.e. 25.09.2017, clearly concluding that the present petitioners were allotted the land in question in accordance with law and that they are reflected as owners thereof in the revenue record. The petition was accepted only to the extent that in case any of the petitioners are in possession of excess of the area allotted to them, they are liable to be evicted.
4. It is submitted that in an absolutely illegal manner, another petition under Section 7 of the Act has been instituted by the respondent-Gram Panchayat and impugned notice dated dated 18.12.2019 (Annexure P13) was issued, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that at best it was open to the authorities to have a fresh demarcation carried out and in case any of the petitioners were found to be in possession of land in excess of that allotted to them, necessary action could have been taken for their eviction without filing of any fresh petition/application under Section 7 of the Act.
5. Order dated 25.09.2017, it is stated, was not challenged either by the Gram Panchayat or by any other person. Learned counsel further refers to reply dated 01.12.2021 in CWP No.37677 of 2019 filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and 5, wherein it is admitted that the plots in question were allotted to the petitioners.
6. It is pointed out by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that reply has not been filed in CWP No.5549 of 2020 despite various opportunities, however, petitioners in the said writ petition are identically situated. Order dated 25.09.2017 was passed qua the petitioners therein as well, which is almost identical to the order(s) dated 25.09.2017 passed in respect to the petitioners in CWP No.37677 of 2019. It is asserted that none of the petitioners in CWP No.5549 of 2020 are in possession of land in excess to the one which was duly allotted to them in accordance with law. It is, thus, prayed that both the writ petitions be allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the State while referring to reply dated 01.12.2021 in CWP No.37677 of 2019 affirms that the plots measuring 300 sq. yards were indeed allotted to the petitioners. Though no reply has been filed in CWP No.5549 of 2020, there is indeed nothing on record to disbelieve the stand of the petitioners therein and neither has anything to the contrary, pointed out. It is submitted that the respondent-authorities have no objection in case construction is raised on the allotted plots and action would be taken only in respect to the excess area, if any, in possession of the petitioners.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the files with their able assistance.
8. It is not denied by learned counsel for the State that order dated 25.09.2017 was not challenged by the respondent-Gram Panchayat and the same has, in fact, attained finality. It is apparent that plots measuring 300 sq.yards were allotted to the petitioners on deposi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper demarcation of allotted land and the entitlement of the Gram Panchayat to take action for eviction if the petitioners we....
The court ruled that an eviction petition under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act must be converted into a title suit for valid jurisdiction, invalidating subsequent orders if not.
Illegal occupation of Gram Panchayat land does not confer any right to claim ownership or regularization.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow the procedure of framing issues and providing an opportunity for evidence submission in accordance with the law.
The court emphasized the importance of providing evidence to substantiate claims of land possession and ownership, and upheld the imposition of the fine for non-compliance with the deposit requiremen....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
