The central legal point established is that the Gram Panchayat had the right to auction the disputed land and seek eviction based on its use for common purposes of the village.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the order dated 20.07.2017 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No. 3 ordering eviction of the petitioners from the land in the dispute and order dated 01.11.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No. 2 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners in illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted and wrong exercise of jurisdiction through cryptic, non-speaking and order passed in violation of principles of natural justice with the further prayer to direct the respondents to desist from interfering in the possession of the petitioners till the title of the land in question is determined by the competent court of jurisdiction.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are the residents of Village Hetampura and are the original proprietors of the Village. The consolidation of holdings was carried out in the village prior to the year 1966-67 and the land in question measuring 77 kanals 13 marlas was reserved by applying prorata cut for various purposes of the village. He has submitted that though the land in question was reserved during the consolidation but it was never used for any common purposes and thus, as it remained uncultivated for many years and it became banjar kadim. It is submitted that the petitioners and some other inhabitants of the village made the land cultivable in the year 2008-09 and since then the petitioners are in cultivating possession of this land being the proprietors of the village. He has submitted that due to the change of government in the State the Gram Panchayat clandestinely filed petition under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) against the petitioners for their eviction. He has submitted that learned Collector without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case decided the case by passing a cryptic order evicting the petitioners vide impugned order dated 20.07.2017. He submits that aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Joint Development Commissioner (IRD). He submits that the petitioners made their submissions taking various grounds contending that the land in dispute is Jumla Mustarka Malkan and thus, the respondent-Gram Panchayat had no concern with the same however, the Appellate Court also fallen in error and dismissed the appeal by passing a non-speaking order dated 01.11.2017. It is submitted that the impugned orders are erroneous and have been passed by the authorities below by illegally exercising the jurisdiction. It has been submitted that the authorities below have failed to appreciate the revenue record and thus, passed the order without ascertaining the ownership of the land. He submits that as per the revenue record, the land is shown to be Jumla Mustarka Malkan and thus, as per the law settled, the land is in the ownership of the proprietors of the Village and does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. He submits that the land was neither shown as reserved for any particular purpose during consolidation nor it was ever used for common purposes of the Gram Panchayat but both the authorities below have failed to appreciate the same. He submits that it has been wrongly shown by the respondents-authorities that this land has been auctioned to various people at a higher rate but the average lease amount per acre in the facts and circumstances comes out hardly to be Rs.5,000/-. He submits that the authorities below have miserably failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the law settled and thus, the impugned orders being totally unsustainable in the eyes of law deserve to be set aside.

3. Learned State counsel however has opposed the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that the respondents-authorities have decided the case totally in accordance with the evidence on record and the law settled and thus, by no stretch of imaginat