The necessity for a valid demarcation of disputed passage by an empowered Revenue Officer before making conclusions on eviction petitions.

Judgment

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The petitioner Gram Panchayat concerned, is before this Court, it becoming aggrieved from the concurrently made dismissal orders, on its petition, filed under Section 7 of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1961”), whereby it sought the eviction of the respondent one Niranjan Singh, from the petition lands.

2. The allegation made against the private respondents herein, whose ancestor one Niranjan Singh became impleaded, as a respondent in the eviction petition concerned, is that he had through raising a construction on the “Gair Mumkin” rasta, but meant for the common user of the entire village proprietary body, thus had made the said rasta to be unamenable for being used for the relevant common purpose. The Khasra number, whereons the disputed passage exists, is unraveled in the petition (supra).

3. The reason which appears to prevail, upon the learned Collector concerned, in his drawing Annexure P-5, whereby he declined relief, to the Gram Panchayat concerned, becomes rested, on the factum, that after a personal site inspection being made by him of the disputed passage, his proceeding to arrive at a conclusion, that though the disputed land is owned by the Gram Panchayat concerned, but thereafter he also made a conclusion, that no rasta exists on the said lands. Furthermore, he also made a conclusion in Annexure P-5, that the villagers, do not have any necessity, for making user of the disputed path, because there is another path which adjoins the suit path. In addition, he also proceeded to hold that in case the private respondent’s structure as raised thereon, is demolished, thereupon it will bring gross injustice to him. In consequence, he directed the Gram Panchayat of village Ahrana Kalan, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, not to eject the respondent from the disputed passage.

4. Through Annexure P-5 a further direction was made, upon the Tehsildar Revenue, that the value of the disputed lands, shall be assessed by the said Tehsildar Revenue, and, the assessed amount may be recovered from the respondent, and, thereafter deposited in the Panchayat funds.

5. In an appeal becoming carried against Annexure P-5 by the aggrieved Gram Panchayat concerned, the outcome thereof as revealed by Annexure P-6 also was not favourable to the appellant concerned.

6. In consequence, the Gram Panchayat concerned, is led to institute the instant writ petition before this Court, whereby it seeks, to make a challenge to the concurrently made dismissal orders, thus by the statutory authorities below. Since no appeal became filed by one Niranjan Singh, against the conclusions drawn by the learned Collector concerned, in Annexure P-5, whereby he inferred, that the disputed passage is owned by the Gram Panchayat concerned. Therefore, the non-filing of any cross appeal against the said conclusion formed by the learned Collector concerned, thus at the instance of one Niranjan Singh, rather leads to a conclusion, that thereby the said private respondent, but naturally acquiesces to the conclusion recorded in Annexure P-5, and, in Annexure P-6, that the suit passage is owned by the Gram Panchayat concerned.

7. Therefore, it has to be adjudged, whether the inferences (supra) drawn by the statutory authorities below, despite theirs concluding, that the disputed passage is owned by the Gram Panchayat concerned, inasmuch as, theirs making a conclusion, that for want of common users of the said disputed path, whereons, the disputed structure becomes raised, at the instance of one Niranjan Singh, besides theirs concurrently concluding, that since the rasta alternate to the disputed passage, is used by the village proprietary body concerned, therebys the said disputed structure, is not required to be demolished, thus acquires any force in law.

8. For the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, but primarily for the reasons (supra), that the private respondents herein, do not dis