JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

CM-17572-CWP-2022

Allowed as prayed for.

Main Case

The present petitioner, who was not a party, in the memo of parties carried in an order (Annexure P-1) recorded on 27.02.1998, upon file No.36/VCL, whereby the Gram Panchayat's petition for seeking eviction of the respondents therein was allowed, thus accesses this Court for executing the said decree of eviction.

2. In pursuance to the making of Annexure P-1, the learned Collector concerned, issued warrants of possession (Annexure P-2). The effect of the present petitioner not being imp leaded, as a party in Annexure P-1, but as a perform respondent therein, to aid the Gram Panchayat concerned, to secure a decree of eviction in respect of the panchayat lands, results in an inference that thereby he has no locus standi at all to ensure that a valid execution be ensured to be made qua Annexure P-1. In consequence, the effect of the instant petition, at this stage, as moved, on behalf of the un-arrayed party in the lis, is that, the petition moved, at his instance to seek the execution of Annexure P-1, is an ill-constituted endeavour on his part.

3. The order of eviction (Annexure P-1) became challenged by one of the aggrieved respondents one Tarlochan Singh, before the learned Appellate Authority, but the said challenge as revealed by Annexure P-8, was completely unsuccessful.

4. Be that as it may, the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Collector concerned, on the lis (supra), may have been construed to be a valid exercise of jurisdiction, but only in the event of, thus before him a valid demarcation report being placed, and, also a lawful exhibition mark becoming made thereon. However, even without a demarcation report being placed, before the learned Collector concerned, which for reasons (supra), but was imperative, as only on its basis, a decree of eviction was validly render able. Since the apposite report was not placed before the learned Collector concerned, thereby the rendition of a decree of eviction, thus is in complete derogation of the requirement of law, that only when a validly drawn demarcation report is presented, and, is tendered or is lawfully exhibited, and, it reveals that the encroachments are made, at the instance of the respondents, over the petition lands, that a valid decree of eviction is render able thus on the apposite petition. Therefore, then it could be said that the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Collector concerned, thus become a validly exercised jurisdiction. Since the above has not been done, therefore, in the making of Annexure P-1, the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Collector concerned, is completely flawed, and/or, the exercising of jurisdiction by him, is with complete lack of application of mind, besides becomes exercised with a material illegality and gross impropriety.

5. The result of the above conclusion, is that, Annexure P-1 is not enforceable, and, even if in the warrants of possession, there is a direction that the demarcation be carried out of the petition lands, prior to the warrants of possession becoming enforced. However, yet even the said direction, is not a valid substitute to the necessity of the learned Collector concerned, imperatively during the pendency of the apposite petition, thus being seized with a valid demarcation report, and on its basis, his ably concluding, that encroachments are made on the disputed lands, by the encroachers concerned. Though, the said direction could have been incorporated in the warrants of possession, but only when prior thereto, even in the case (supra), there existed the requisite demarcation report, which however was neither tendered nor was lawfully exhibite