JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

The counsel for the parties at contest, do not controvert, the fact that a binding and conclusive order of eviction became made by the learned Collector concerned, on 17.12.2013 upon file No. 14. Therefore, the above made binding and conclusive order of eviction, was required to be promptly and completely enforced, by the respondents concerned. In the above regard, it appears that the Collector concerned, did take prompt steps to enforce the binding and conclusive order of eviction (Annexure P-1), inasmuch as, the warrants of possession became drawn on 10.06.2014. The above warrants of possession were issued to the Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildar of the Block concerned. However, yet there is no mentioning therein about the dates whereon the said warrants of possession were made returnable.

2. Be that as it may, the striking aspect of the case, is that, the warrants of possession were drawn much earlier from today, and or were drawn in the year 2014, and, yet they have till date remained unexecuted. Thus, leading the petitioner herein to access this Court, but, for ensuring that appropriate directions be made, upon, the respondents concerned, along with responsibility being fixed upon the officers concerned, who made an inordinate delay in ensuring the most efficacious and completest, execution of the warrants of possession, as became drawn in the year 2014.

3. However, the petitioner herein prima facie has no locus standi or any legal capacity to access this Court as he was not impleaded as a party in the lis concerned. Moreover, since otherwise also in terms of Section 7 of the PUNJAB VILLAGE COMMON LANDS ACT , 1961, any private individual is barred from availing the remedy as prescribed under Section 7 , thus, for ensuring the eviction of encroachers over the Panchyat land concerned. Nonetheless irrespective of the above, what captures the attention of this Court, and, requires that action in accordance with law be drawn against the erring officers concerned, is that, though the Panchayat concerned, is the beneficiary of the said binding and conclusive order of eviction, yet it has also remained completely lethargic and indolent in accessing this Court, for ensuring that a prompt efficacious execution being made of Annexure P-1. Therefore, for the above reason, and, thereupon, there is prima facie collusion inter se the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned, and, the respondents in the eviction petition, thus, leading to a pretextual inordinate rather being happening, in the makings of promptest completest execution of the said order of eviction. Resultantly, this Court deems it fit yet to construe the instant petition to be well constituted.

4. As stated above, the warrants of possession (Annexure P-1), though, were drawn almost proximate to the binding and conclusive verdict of eviction hence being made on 17.12.2014, on the eviction petition (supra). However, the Collector concerned who has drawn it, and who is now stated to have expired, did not mention therein, the dates whereon, the said warrants were to made returnable, though he was under a bounden legal obligation to mention the date on which the warrants of possession, thus, were to be made returnable. In addition, the Collector concerned was also under a bounden legal obligation, to subsequently assign dates, for the listing of the eviction petition before him, so as to ensure, that whatsoever defect is mentioned by the Revenue Officer concerned, in his making / completest execution of the warrants of possession, that such constraints are overcome, through subsequent orders being made on the execution petition. However, it appears that the execution petit