The eviction process under the Haryana Village Common Land Act requires substantiation with relevant documents; mere claims of disputed title without evidence are insufficient.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

Gram Panchayat, Karhans through its Panch Sh. Raj Singh, village Karhans Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat instituted a petition cast under Section 7 of the Haryana Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961), against the petitioner herein, whereby it claimed for the making of a decree of eviction against him. Through an order made on the petition (supra), on 11.9.2017 (Annexure P-1), the learned Assistant Collector, Ist Grade Samalkha, after analyzing the revenue entries, as occurred in the requisite jamabandis, respectively for the years 1969-70, 1974-75 and 1979-80, with thereins the entry of jumla malkan existing in the column of ownership, and, an entry of charand existing in the column of cultivator, besides upon analyzing the jamabandis, respectively relating to the years 1984-85, 1989-90, whereins, in the column of ownership an entry of jumla malkan also existed, but in the column of cultivation, the present petitioner was entered as co-sharer gair marusi, and, with the said entry continuing in the jamabandi for the year 2014-15, thus proceeded to after allowing the said eviction petition, pass an order for the eviction of the present petitioner from the disputed land. Aggrieved from Annexure P-1, the said Jasmer Singh filed a statutory appeal bearing No. 62/DC, before the Collector Panipat, who, through an order made thereons, on 05.07.2018, proceeded to concur with the decision, as embodied in Annexure P-1. Consequently, after dismissing the appeal, the Appellate Court concerned, proceed to order for eviction of the present petitioner from the disputed land. Being aggrieved from Annexure P-2, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the District Commissioner, District Karnal, who through an order made thereons, on 7.12.2018, after concurring with the analysis of the revenue records (supra), as became initially made by the Assistant Collector concerned, proceeded to also decline the relief to the petitioner in the said revision petition, and, as such proceeded to order for the eviction of the petitioner from the disputed land(s).

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued, that though a disputed question of title with respect to the entitlement of the Gram Panchayat concerned, over the lands concerned, becoming well laid, thus for non suiting the Gram Panchayat concerned, but he submits, that though the said dispute also became raised in terms of the proviso to Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961'), thereupon the said dispute rather required becoming tried in a manner alike the trial of a suit by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. However, he submits, that the said recourse, did not become adopted by the Assistant Collector concerned, thereby the learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the impugned decisions (supra) are made in gross departure of the mandate enshrined in the proviso to Section 7 of the Act of 1961, and, as such they are ingrained with entrenched vices of non-application of mind, and, are founded, upon ill-informed reasons. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, this Court does not concur with the above made submissions.

3. The lead reason for rejecting the above submission, is founded, on the factum, that the availment of the proviso to Section 7 of the Act of 1961, is not required, to be made in a most perfunctory, and, mechanical manner, but is required to be raised with all the relevant documents becoming appended with the said application, and, the said documents making candid speakings, that prior to 1950, the present petitioner became reflected in the revenue records, to hold independent cultivating possession of the disputed land(s), rather for his therebys ably canvassing, that resultantly his becoming entitled to become endowed with the benefit of the apposite savings clause to the definition of shamlat