The Assistant Collector has exclusive jurisdiction over eviction matters under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, and actions by the Deputy Commissioner attempting to usurp this authority are void.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

One Sirdar instituted an eviction petition under Section 7 (2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, (hereinafter in short to be referred as 'the Act of 1961'), against five respondents, one of whom was one Jaan Mohammad @ Jaanu. The said Jaanu was an elected member of the Zila Parishad concerned, and also was the Chairman of the Zila Parishad. On the said eviction petition, a decree of eviction (Annexure P/3) became passed. Annexure P/3 was required to be enforced by the Assistant Collector, thus on an execution petition becoming filed before him, by the decree holder, one Sirdar besides through an order becoming made for issuance of warrants of possession and subsequently on successful execution of the said warrants of possession, an objective satisfaction becoming recorded by the Assistant Collector concerned, qua the said issued warrants of possession becoming completely and successfully satisfied.

2. However, the said warrants of possession remained unissued nor became executed, despite the fact that even in an appeal becoming raised against Annexure P/3 by the judgment debtor therein i.e. by one Jaanu, yet no order becoming passed by the appellate authority whereby the operation and effect of Annexure P/3 became stayed as such.

3. In other words, through Annexure P/3, thus acquired binding and conclusive effect and was required to be executed as such by the Assistant Collector, through the issuance of warrants of possession, yet it remained unexecuted, and, that too prima facie impermissibly for an elongated spell of almost 20 years, since the passing of the Annexure P/3 and the statutory appeal becoming raised after 20 years therefroms.

4. Be that as it may, it appears that the Deputy Commissioner through passing an order (Annexure P/11), constituted a four members committee, for making an enquiry qua whether the disputed khasra numbers becoming encroached, upon, at the instance of one Jaan Mohammad resident of Akbarpur (Punhana), who as stated supra, was not only the member of the Zila Parishad, but also was the Chairman of the Zila Parishad concerned.

5. The making of Annexure P/11 has been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground, that despite the matter relating to the encroachments becoming made by one Jaan Mohammad (Jaanu), over the disputed lands, thereby there was no occassion for the Deputy Commissioner to yet constitute a committee for determining the disputed fact whether the said Jaan Mohammad, had made encroachments over the contentious khasra numbers. The said argument is rested on the premise that since the jurisdictionally empowered Assistant Collector concerned, had enquired into and had also passed a decision against the said Jaan Mohammad and others who become impleaded as respondents in the eviction petition, thereby the Deputy Commissioner concerned was completely barred from proceeding to make Annexure P/11.

6. The above made argument before this Court appeals to the judicial conscience of this Court, as the jurisdictional competence to enquire into the contentious factum qua one Jaan Mohammad making encroachments upon the disputed khasra numbers, was solitarily vested with the Assistant Collector concerned, and did not as such vest with the Deputy Commissioner of District Nuh. Therefore, the passing of Annexure P/11 by the Deputy Commissioner, Nuh, whereby he attempted to usurp and assume to himself the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector also prima facie appears to forestall the furtherings of the apposite execution proceedings against the said Jaan Mohammad, besides appears to forestall the decree holder from successfully executing (Annexure P/3). Resultantly, Annexure P/3 becomes stained with a vice of gross illegality.

7. Though, in the face of the above, this Court is constrained to quash Annexure P/11. Nonetheless, the passing of Annexure P/3, did make Jaan Mohammad, to incur the disqualification, as envisa