The court affirmed the authority of the Gram Panchayat to auction disputed land, ruling that the petitioner's claims of ownership were undermined by his own leasing actions and lack of evidence.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Factual Background

That the petitioner filed petition under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 hereinafter for short called as 'the Consolidation Act' before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, for making the deficiency of the land of the religious place 'Takia Daswandhi Shah', thus being the proprietor of the above said religious place. The Director vide his order dated 19.12.1989, accepted the said petition and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer to check the record and make up the deficiency.

2. In compliance with the order of the Director, the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.05.1990 (Annexure P-1), ordered for making up the deficiency of 11 kanals 13 marlas of land of 'Takia Daswandhi Shah'.

3. Respondent No. 4-Gram Panchayat filed an appeal thereagainst before the Settlement Officer. However, the said appeal became dismissed.

4. Feeling dis-satisfied from the afore orders (Annexures P-1 and P-2), respondent No. 4-Gram Panchayat preferred an appeal before the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Jalandhar. The Assistant Director, through its order drawn on 03.02.1992, accepted the said appeal and ordered that the parties can go to the Civil Court for interpretation of the Order dated 19.12.1989.

5. The petitioner filed appeal against the order dated 03.02.1992 before the Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh. The Director, Consolidation vide order dated 24.09.1992 (Annexure P-3) issued notice on the apposite appeal and ordered for status quo, till further orders.

6. It has been averred in the writ petition that the State Government long back during the year 1977-78, decided to develop Focal Point in Block Nadala in District Kapurthala. Since the Gram Panchayat was not having enough land situated on the main road, thereby it exchanged its land with the land of the petitioner. The land under dispute and some other land was given to the father of the petitioner in exchange (Annexure P-3/A). However, possession of the land of the disputed khasra numbers was not given to the father of the petitioner. The then Sarpanch and the Deputy Commissioner promised to make up the necessary deficiency. However, the Gram Panchayat kept on auctioning the land falling on the disputed khasra numbers.

7. In the year 1990, the petitioner again made request to the Gram Panchayat either to release his land under Focal Point or make up the deficiency of the land. The then Sarpanch asked the petitioner to take the land on lease and in the meantime, they would start process for transferring the same in the name of the petitioner.

8. The petitioner continued to take the land on lease in the years 1991, 1992 and 1993. Copies of the receipts whereof are attached as Annexures P-5, P-6 and P-7. The lease period of the petitioner was going to expire on 30.05.1994. It was further requested that in view of the stay order (Annexure P-3), the Gram Panchayat cannot auction the land. However, despite the Director ordering for maintaining status quo, still the Gram Panchayat conducted the auction of the land for lease on 16.04.1994 without even following the procedure.

9. The petitioner filed there against a petition before respondent No. 1, whereins, he was directed to appear before the DDPO (Kapurthala) on 29.04.1994.

10. The DDPO concerned, through the impugned order (Annexure P-14) made on 29.04.1994, held that the auction held on 16.04.1994, was conducted in accordance with rules and with the consent of both the panchayats.

11. The petitioner filed an appeal there against before respondent No. 1 (Annexure P-16), whereins, he was granted interim stay. Inspite of various orders passed by the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) exercising the power of Commissioner with regard to maintaining status quo over the property in question, still the petitioner was dispossessed.

12. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner furth