Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Maninder Singh, D.A.G, Punjab., Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Harsh Bunger, J.

1. Petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the eviction petition filed by Gram Panchayat, Dhanoor, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana (respondent No.3) with a further prayer for restraining the authorities from proceeding further with the eviction proceedings and eviction of the petitioners from the land in question.

2. Briefly, respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat, Dhanoor filed an eviction petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as 'the Act, 1961') seeking eviction of petitioner No.1-Bachna Ram from the land in dispute. Present petitioner No.1 appeared in the said petition and submitted his written statement, opposing the prayer of the Gram Panchayat and seeking dismissal of the eviction proceedings.

3. During the pendency of the eviction proceedings, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition seeking quashing of the eviction petition/proceedings by taking various pleas. The sum and substance of case of petitioners is stated in para 4 of the writ petition, which reads as under :-

"4. That according to the Revenue Records particularly Shajra Nasab upto August, 1947, the Village Dhanoor was wholly Muslim village - on the migration of all the Muslim proprietors of village Dhanoor to Pakistan in the year 1947, all their interests in the land and property including their share in the Shamlat Deh became evacuee property and vested in the Custodian and subsequently came to be acquired by the Central Government by the operation of law under various enactments. After satisfying the claims of the Claimants, out of the evacuee property largely, the surplus rural evacuee lands and house land including land of the petitioners were sold by the Central Government to Punjab Government with effect from 1.4.1961 vide Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation, letter No.3(35)Pol/11-60 L&R dated 3.6.1961, which letter finds mention in definition of "Package Deal Property" under section 2(1) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties/Disposal Act, 1976, and also in the Schedule attached thereto, thereafter, referred as Package Deal Property Act. After the Punjab Government became the owner of surplus evacuee agricultural lands, including Shamlat Deh, which belonged to the Muslims who had migrated to Pakistan, as mentioned above, the State Government, gave land in possession of the petitioners on lease at the first instance for ten years to the petitioners in the year 1961, with an undertaking that after they made it fit for cultivation, the lease would stand extended and renewed and ultimately the said land would be allotted to them on permanent basis or sold to them on concessional rates. Petitioners brought under cultivation with great efforts and expenses over number of years, the said leased out surplus evacuee land, which was Gair Mumkin and Banjar Qadim. They are in continuous possession of the said land for the last about 20 years."

4. The petitioners claim that they are in possession of the land in dispute since 1961 onwards and being allottees under the Punjab Utilization of Land Act, 1949; the eviction petition was not maintainable nor respondent No.2 (District Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana) had the jurisdiction to entertain the said eviction petition. The petitioners further claim that they have also moved applications for the purchase of the land in question and the matter was pending before the concerned authorities. The petitioners also claim that the land in dispute is not 'Shamlat Deh' but an evacuee property; therefore, the eviction petition/proceedings cannot be proceeded with and the same be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has submitted that the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners that the property is an evacuee property and vests with the custodian and not with the concerned