The court emphasized that mere claims of ownership are insufficient; prima facie evidence of title must be established to invoke eviction proceedings under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act.

JUDGMENT

Harsh Bunger, J.

Petitioner (Ram Sarup) has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of impugned orders dated 29.01.1993 (Annexure P-2), 15.03.1994 (Annexure P-3) and 12.05.1994 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Panipat; Collector, Panipat and Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, respectively.

2. Briefly, Gram Panchayat, Bhadar, District Panipat filed an eviction petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the 1961 Act') seeking eviction of petitioner from the land comprised in Khasra No.90/1 min (3-4) and 90/1 (3-3) on the plea that the aforesaid land is Shamlat Deh and petitioner herein is in illegal and unauthorised possession of the said land.

Petitioner herein appeared in the aforesaid eviction proceedings and contested the same by filing his reply, wherein he inter alia stated that the Gram Panchayat is not the owner of land in question; and on the contrary, he was the owner in possession of said land since the time of his father and grandfather. Accordingly, petitioner raised an objection that before carrying out the eviction proceedings, the question regarding ownership of the land in dispute be settled.

3. The aforesaid objection regarding question of title qua the land in question was taken up for consideration by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Panipat. Petitioner asserted that the land in question does not fall within the definition of 'Shamlat Deh' because before vesting into the Gram Panchayat, the land was owned by Shamlat Pana Gujran, and such land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat as the same is not used for common purposes as per the Revenue Record. Apparently, the Gram Panchayat produced a copy of jamabandi for the year 1989-90 before the concerned authority, which reflected that the land in question was shown as the ownership of Gram Panchayat; and therefore, the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Panipat, vide order dated 29.01.1993 (Annexure P-2), observed that the land in dispute is owned by the Gram Panchayat and petitioner herein had not produced any evidence regarding the fact that the land in dispute was not used for any common purpose or that he was in possession of the land in question on or before 26.01.1950.

Accordingly, the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Panipat did not find any question of title involved in the case and consequently the objection of petitioner regarding question of title qua land in dispute was rejected and it was observed that the eviction proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 Act be carried out.

4. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 29.01.1993 (Annexure P-2), petitioner herein filed an appeal before the Collector, Panipat, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.03.1994 (Annexure P-3), by observing as under:-

"After hearing the arguments of both the counsel for the parties and perusal of the record which has come on file I have come to his conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove the contention raised in this appeal. From the perusal of the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1989-90 exhibit P-2 and P-3 produced on the file of the lower court that the land in dispute is owned by the Gram Panchayat. According to exhibit P-2 in the column of ownership Gram Panchayat Deh has been recorded and in the column of cultivation Prema s/o Sidhu Sakin Deh has been recorded as Gair Maroosi and the land comprised in khasra no. 90/1 min (3-3). In similar manner in Exhibit P-3 Gram Panchayat Deh is recorded in the column of ownership and in the column of cultivation Chhotu s/o Ram Kishan Sakin Deh Gair Maroosi has been recorded, and the land comprised in Kh. No. 90/1 min is (4-4). According to the copy of the khasra Girdawari exhibit P-4 & P-5 the name of the appellant has come in the Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 1991 and prior there to the appellant has no connection with the land in