Under the relevant statute, a revenue authority is not required to stay summary eviction proceedings upon a mere assertion of title. A stay is only mandatory if the claimant provides prima facie documentary evidence of title, failing which the authority may proceed to order eviction.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL

1. The plaintiff (now being represented by his legal representative(s)) is in Regular Second Appeal which has been filed under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 03.06.1993 passed by the 1st Appellate Court vide which the appeal filed by the respondent-gram panchayat/defendants, was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff/present appellant was dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court dated 17.03.1990 was set aside.

2. It would be relevant to note that earlier vide order dated 17.11.1993 the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by passing the following order:-

“Present Mr. C.B. Goel Advocate.

No merit.

Dismissed.

17.11.1993”

3. The plaintiff had challenged the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27.11.2002 had set aside the said order and had remitted the matter to the High Court to consider as to whether any substantial question or question of law arises for consideration and then to dispose of the second appeal in accordance with law. On 08.12.2003, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had admitted the appeal and the same has now been taken up for final adjudication.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 09.02.1988 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hansi, on an application under Section 7 (1) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, (The word “Punjab” has been substituted by the word “Haryana” by Act no.15 of 2021 which has been deemed to have been substituted w.e.f. 01.11.1966 and is hereinafter referred to be as “1961 Act”) with respect to the land measuring 24 kanal 4 marlas bearing khasra nos.206/14/2/(4-0)18(4-8), 25(7-7), 235/5(8-0) situated at village Mirchpur, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar, is illegal. It is argued that in the reply to the application under Section 7 of the 1961 Act, the plaintiff/appellant had raised several objections which shows that a question of title was involved in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the reply dated 16.08.1983 (Ex.P2) filed to the said application under Section 7 of the 1961 Act and has stated that in the said reply it was stated that the present appellant was in continuous possession of the suit property through his forefathers for about two hundred years and it was further his case that the said possession was not illegal and that the mutation entries in favour of Gram Panchayat were illegal and against law and could not take away the right of the appellant-plaintiff.

5. It is argued that since a question of title had been raised, thus, as per the provisions of Section 7 of the 1961 Act, it was incumbent upon the Assistant Collector, to decide as to whether the question of title had arisen or not and if it had arisen then to decide the said question of title before ordering the eviction of the present appellant from the premises in question. It is submitted that once certain points have been raised in the reply to the application under Section 7 of the 1961 Act, then, it was incumbent upon the competent authority under the 1961 Act to have at least considered as to whether a question of title is prima facie involved or not, on the basis