JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

Petitioner one Suba Singh filed a petition under Section 7 read with Rule 20-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961'), before the learned Collector concerned. In the said petition, the petitioner arrayed one Harbhajan Singh as co-respondent No. 1 and, also arrayed Gram Panchayat, village Kang, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur as co-respondent No. 2. The petitioner claimed thereins, that the petition land was owned and possessed by the Gram Panchayat concerned, and, the said land has been subjected to construction, at the instance of co-respondent No. 1 Harbhajan Singh. Therefore, relief was claimed in the above petition, that an order of eviction, be made against the said respondent. In the said petition, bearing case No. 186 of 8.7.2014, the learned Collector concerned, made an order for ejectment of co-respondent No. 1-Harbhajan Singh, from the petition land. Moreover, he also ordered, that within one month, after removing the illegal construction, as made thereons at the instance of one Harbhajan Singh, he shall hand over the vacant possession to respondent No. 2, and, further directed the respondent concerned, to pay damages for a sum of Rs. One lac, to co-respondent No. 2, for raising unauthorized constructions over the panchayat land. The above affirmative order, as made by the learned Collector concerned, upon the petition (supra), led the aggrieved therefrom one Harbhajan Singh, to institute an appeal there against, before the learned Appellate Court concerned. The learned Appellate Court concerned, after disconcurring with the reasons, as became assigned by the learned Collector concerned, hence to make an affirmative order on the case (supra), rather proceeded to allow the apposite statutory appeal. The above order, as made by the learned Appellate Court concerned, has brought pain to one Suba Singh, and, has led him to institute there against the instant writ petition, before this Court.

Analysis of the provisions of Section 7 of the Act of 1961

2. At the very outset, the learned State counsel has argued, that the petitioner has no locus standi to institute a petition under Section 7 of the Act of 1961, before the Collector concerned. In making the above argument, the learned State counsel, has drawn the attention of this Court, to the mandate, carried in sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of the Act of 1961, provisions whereof become extracted hereinafter, whereins, becomes embodied a mandate rather only authorizing the panchayat concerned, or an officer duly authorized in this behalf, by the State Government by a general or special order, to avail the remedy, constituted in Section 7 of the Act of 1961.

"7. Power to put panchayat in possession of shamilat deh.-- (1) The Collector shall, on an application made to him by a panchayat or by an officer, duly authorised in this behalf by the State Government by a general or special order after making such enquiry, as he may think fit and in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed put the panchayat in possession of the land or other immovable property in the shamilat deh of that village which vests or is deemed to have been vested in it under this Act and for so doing the collector may exercise the powers of a revenue court ·in relation to the execution of a decree for possession of land under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887"

3. The above made argument is well rested on the above provision, as there is a specific mandate, carried in the provision (supra), whereby, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Collector concerned, on a petition cast under