IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Reserved on : 23.01.2025 Pronounced on : 11.02.2025 Sr. No. Case Number Title of the case

1. CWP-15189-2000 Gram Panchayat Vs. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and Others.

2. CWP-15194-2000 Gram Panchayat Vs. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and Others.

3. CWP-15190-2000 Gram Panchayat Vs. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and Others.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Argued by: Mr. K.G.Chaudhary, Advocate Mr. Sushant Puri, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. M.L.Saggar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Armaan Saggar, Advocate for the respondent(s).

Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

****

SURESHWAR THAKUR , J .

1. Since all the writ petition(s) involve common questions of facts and law, besides since the impugned orders are similar in all the writ petition(s), therefore, they are amenable to be decided through a common order.

2. The instant writ petition(s) have been instituted by Gram Panchayat of village Bajaj, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, whereins, the petitioner prays for the quashing of the order dated 05.03.1998 and of order dated 29.09.2000, as made respectively by the District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Jalandhar, and, by the Financial Commissioner (Development), Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner), Chandigarh.

Factual Background.

3. For the sake of brevity, the facts of CWP-15189-2000 are taken here for deciding the instant controversy.

4. The land in dispute was given on lease to the predecessor of respondent No. 3, one Nirmal Singh and others. The said land was further given on Chakota to Nirmal Singh etc., in the year 1972-73 for Rs. 900/-, in the year 1973-74 for Rs. 1800/- and in the year 1975-76 for Rs. 1400 and so on.

5. On expiry of the lease period, the private respondents filed civil suit(s) for rendition(s) of decree(s) of permanent injunction, thus, before the Court of Sub Judge First Class Kapurthala, wherebys, they prayed that except in accordance with law, they be not evicted from the suit lands. The said suit became dismissed vide order dated 20.08.1979, thus on the ground that the exercising of jurisdiction by the civil court vis-a-vis the subject dispute, rather being statutorily barred.

6. Since one of the private respondent i.e. Bachan Singh failed to deliver back, the possession of the subject land, to the Gram Panchayat, therebys, the Gram Panchayat filed an ejectment petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter for short called as the Act of 1961) before the Collector concerned. The said petition became allowed vide order dated 07.06.1985 and the said respondent was ordered to be ejected from the suit lands.

7. Further, the private respondents – Nirmal Singh, Balwinder Singh and Bachan Singh filed separate title suits under Section 11 of the Act of 1961, before the Collector Kapurthala. The said petitions became allowed vide order dated 27.05.1988. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat filed an appeal thereagainst before the Additional Director, Panchayat, who, vide order dated 21.02.1990 remanded the cases to the Court below for deciding it afresh. Further, the Collector, Kapurthala on the remanded lis, vide order dated 23.04.1992, passed a decision in favour of the Gram Panchayat. Subsequently, the aggrieved, private respondents herein filed an appeal thereagainst before the Joint Development Commissioner (I.R.D.) Punjab. The said appeal became allowed and the Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab vide order dated 08.02.1995 remanded the case to the Court below for deciding it afresh.

8. On the remanded lis, the District Development & Panchayat Officer – cum – Collector, Jalandhar, through passing a common order dated 05.03.1998 (Annexure P-6), thus on the respective petition(s) as became preferred by the private respondents, made thereons an affirmative order and accordingly, the private respondents- petitioners therein were declared to b