The central legal point established is the requirement to prove title through documentary evidence as per Section 7 of the Act of 1961, and the consequences of failure to do so.

JUDGMENT :

(Sudeepti Sharma, J.)

1. All these civil writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal as common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions.

2. The brief facts of the cases are that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Kaithal, filed an application under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Land Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act of 1961”) before the Court of learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kaithal and vide his order dated 28.11.1997 ordered the ejectment of the petitioners from the land in question and imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- per hectare per year from the year 1975-76 till the vacation of the land. An appeal was preferred against the same by the petitioners before the Collector, Kaithal which was dismissed on 27.11.1998. Against the order of the learned Collector, Kaithal, the petitioners filed revision petitions before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt., who vide order dated 09.03.2004 remanded their cases to the learned Collector, Kaithal, to decide the same on merit after hearing both the parties and giving them opportunity to produce evidence after spot inspection. In compliance of order of the learned Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, the learned Collector vide order dated 24.08.2004 remanded the case to Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kaithal. The District Development and Panchayat Officer/Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kaithal, vide order dated 26.10.2015 ordered the ejectment of the petitioners from the land in question and imposed Rs.10,000/- per hectare per year as penalty from the date of the filing of the application till vacation of the possession. Aggrieved by order of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, the petitioners filed appeal before the learned Collector, Kaithal, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.08.2016 and 25.10.2016. Further aggrieved by the order dated 09.08.2016 and 25.10.2016, the petitioners filed the revision petitions and prayed for acceptance of the same and dismissal of the application under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1961.

3. After hearing both the parties, the petitioners as well as the Gram Panchayat, the revision petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed and orders dated 09.08.2016 and 25.10.2016 were upheld vide order dated 27.06.2018 which is impugned herein in these writ petitions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Courts below did not appreciate properly the pleadings of the petitioners and the law applicable thereto and passed the impugned orders in an illegal and arbitrary manner.

5. Further, that the Courts below while passing the impugned orders did not consider that to maintain the petition under Section 7(1)(2) of the Act of 1961, the Gram Panchayat has to prove its ownership over the suit land, whereas as per the revenue record, the proprietors of the village has considerable share in the suit land with the Gram Panchayat. As such the application under Section 7 (1) (2) of the Act of 1961 by the Gram Panchayat is not maintainable against the petitioners/proprietors.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents have argued on the lines of the impugned order dated 27.06.2018.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and after considering the whole record available on the case file, we conclude as under:-

i) In the present case Section 7 of the Haryana Village Common Land Act, 1961 is relevant and therefore the same is reproduced as under:-

“7. Power to put Panchayat in possession of certain lands.-- (1) An Assistant Collector of the first grade having jurisdiction in the village may, either suo moto or on an application made to him by a Panchayat or an inhabitant of the village or the Block Development and Panchayat Officer or Social Education and Panchayat Officer, or any other Officer authorised by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, after making such summary enquiry as he may deem fit and in accordance with such procedure as may be pres