IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 10.01.2025 Amandeep Kaur and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present: Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

****

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

1. Certain village proprietors, who claimed rights in shamlat deh land owned by the Panchayat deh, had filed Civil Writ Petition bearing No.29954 of 2022 titled as “Alamgir Khan Vs. Sukhwinder Singh Tiwana”. In the said writ petition relief was claimed that illegal and unauthorized occupations over shamlat deh land, rather were made by certain encroachers.

2. On the said writ petition, the hereinafter extracted mandamus was passed upon the respondent concerned.

“1. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the BDPO concerned, to forthwith institute a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, before the Collector concerned. However, preceding the institution of the said petition for eviction, the authorized officer concerned, shall conduct a valid demarcation of the petition lands.

2. On such a petition becoming instituted before the Collector concerned, the latter shall after hearing all affected persons concerned, shall make a lawful decision thereons but within six months from its institution. 3. Disposed of.”

3. The learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab places, on record an order rendered by the learned Contempt Bench of this Court, contents whereof become reproduced hereinafter. Reading of the hereafter extracted order reveals, that post the passing of the supra mandamus, by this Court, an eviction petition cast under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, (hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘the Act of 1961’), became instituted against the present petitioners and which ultimately resulted in a decree of eviction being passed against the present petitioners.

“Learned State Counsel informs that the proceedings arising out of Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 have already culminated and the process of removing the encroachment shall be concluded within a period of fifteen days from today.

List on 12.11.2024.

It is made clear that in case the needful is not done, the officer concerned shall join the proceedings through video- conferencing and would be liable to pay litigation costs to the petitioner(s) to the tune of Rs.50,000/- from his/her own pocket.

To be shown in the Urgent List.”

4. Since the present petitioners, did not avail, the remedy of challenging the same through filing a statutory appeal thereagainst. As such, the persons interested in the shamlat deh, thus instituted a contempt petition before this Court, and on the said contempt petition, the above order became rendered.

5. Now post the passing of the decree of eviction by the learned Collector concerned, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Act of 1961, and also without the said verdict of eviction becoming challenged in a statutory appeal becoming raised thereagainst, at the instance of the aggrieved therefrom, rather before the appellate authority concerned yet the learned counsel for the petitioners argued with much vehemence, that since in the Civil Writ Petition No.29954 of 2022, the present petitioners remained unarrayed as respondents, therebys the supra rendered order has caused breach to the principles of natural justice. This Court takes the strongest objection exception to the above argument, as the non impleadment of the present petitioners, in the said petition, especially when the ill consequences as may arise, from the non impleadment of the present petitioners, in the earlier writ petition, did become uncontrovertibly erased, through theirs becoming impleaded as parties in the eviction petition supra. However, yet the lea