Private Individual Lacks Locus Standi To Initiate Eviction Under S.7 Punjab Village Common Lands Act; Collector Cannot Entertain Such Petition: High Court - 2025-05-10

High Court Quashes Eviction of Landless Allottees, Rules Private Individual Cannot Initiate Proceedings Under Punjab Village Common Lands Act

Patiala, Punjab – In a significant ruling, the High Court has quashed eviction orders against several landless individuals who were allotted plots in Village Dughaat, Patiala. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari , delivering the judgment in CWP-25676-2019 and a connected matter, held that a private individual has no legal standing (locus standi) to initiate eviction proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The Court also upheld the eligibility of these petitioners based on an earlier uncontested order by the Deputy Commissioner.

Background: A Contested Land Allotment Scheme

The case originated from a Punjab government policy (dated 17.04.2001, under Rule 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964) empowering Gram Panchayats to allot plots from village common land (shamlat deh) to landless and houseless individuals from specified communities.

The Gram Panchayat of Village Dughaat passed a resolution on November 25, 2013, to allot 5 marla plots. Initially, 74 beneficiaries were proposed. After verification, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development), Patiala, approved allotments to 55 beneficiaries on July 14, 2016, and allotment certificates (Sanads) were issued.

However, this was challenged by Nachhattar Singh (respondent No.7) and another individual in a civil suit. The civil court, on September 6, 2017, decreed the suit, declaring the Gram Panchayat's resolution illegal and void due to irregularities, including allotment to ineligible persons.

The Path to Eviction Orders

Relying on the civil court's decree, Nachhattar Singh filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, before the Collector-cum-District Development and Panchayat Officer (DDPO), Patiala, seeking the eviction of all 74 beneficiaries. The Collector, citing the civil court's annulment of the Gram Panchayat resolution, ordered the eviction of all individuals, including the petitioners who claimed to be eligible, on February 28, 2018. An appeal against this order was dismissed on January 23, 2019, and warrants of possession were subsequently issued on June 3, 2019, compelling the petitioners to approach the High Court.

A Parallel Inquiry Upholds Eligibility

Concurrently, another writ petition (CWP-12827-2016) filed by Subhash Chand had sought to set aside the same Gram Panchayat resolution due to alleged ineligible beneficiaries. The High Court, in that case, had directed the Deputy Commissioner (DC), Patiala, on July 12, 2016, to investigate the matter.

Following this directive, the DC, Patiala, after an inquiry by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development), found that out of the 55 approved beneficiaries, 19 were ineligible. Consequently, vide a detailed order dated March 17, 2017, the DC cancelled the allotments to these 19 individuals and affirmed that 36 allottees, including the current petitioners, were indeed eligible. This order by the DC was never challenged in the civil court or any other forum.

Key Legal Arguments

Petitioners' Counsel argued: 1. The eviction petition under Section 7 of the 1961 Act, filed by a private person ( Nachhattar Singh ), was not maintainable as the Act only empowers the Panchayat or an authorized State Government officer to initiate such proceedings. 2. The DC's order of March 17, 2017, which found the petitioners eligible, was overlooked by the authorities issuing eviction orders and remained unchallenged, thus entitling them to retain their plots. The Gram Panchayat (respondent No.6) supported the petitioners' case.

Respondent No.7's Counsel contended: 1. The civil court's judgment setting aside the Gram Panchayat's resolution validated the eviction orders. 2. As long as the civil court's judgment (dated 06.09.2017) was in force, the eviction orders could not be challenged.

High Court's Decisive Findings on Locus Standi and Eligibility

The High Court identified two vital issues: 1. Whether the Collector could assume jurisdiction on a Section 7 petition instituted by a private person. 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to allotment based on the DC's order dated March 17, 2017.

On Locus Standi under Section 7: Justice Kuldeep Tiwari meticulously examined Section 7(1) of the Act of 1961, which states:

"The collector shall, on an application made to him by a panchayat, or by an officer, duly authorised in this behalf by the state government by a general or special order... put the panchayat in possession..."

The Court unequivocally found:

"Perusal of the above extracted Section clearly indicates that a private respondent has no locus standi to institute a petition under Section 7 of the Act of 1961, before the Collector concerned. This Section empowers only the Panchayat concerned, or, an officer duly authorized on its behalf by the State Government... to initiate the proceedings under Section 7."

Citing its own precedent in Suba Singh v. State of Punjab and others (CWP-26936-2022), the Court reiterated that if a Collector exercises jurisdiction on an "ill constituted petition" by an unauthorized party, the resulting order is "stained with the pervasive vice of completest lack of able jurisdiction, and, thus would be completely void." Therefore, the Court concluded that Nachhattar Singh (respondent No.7) had no locus standi, and the Collector lacked jurisdictional competence to entertain his petition. The eviction order dated 28.02.2018 was thus deemed "not legally sustainable."

On Entitlement based on Deputy Commissioner's Order: The Court found force in the petitioners' argument regarding the DC's order of March 17, 2017.

"This Court vide order dated 12.07.2016, passed in CWP-12827-2016, had directed the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, to enquire into the representations... Thereupon, the Deputy Commissioner concerned had examined the case of each person individually, and, vide a speaking order dated 17.03.2017, he had found only 36 persons eligible for allotment of 5 marla plots. The said order dated 17.03.2017 was not challenged before the civil court, therefore, the persons so found eligible in the order (supra), are entitled to retain the plots allotted to them."

Final Orders and Path Forward

Finding merit in the writ petition, the High Court allowed it and set aside the impugned eviction order (28.02.2018), the appellate order (23.01.2019), and the warrants of possession (03.06.2019) as unsustainable.

To avoid further litigation, the Court issued specific directions to the concerned authorities (Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development) and District Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala, or other competent authorities) to: 1. Allot 5 marla plots to all 36 beneficiaries found eligible by the Deputy Commissioner in the order dated March 17, 2017. 2. Cancel any allotments made to persons found ineligible in the said DC's order. 3. Initiate eviction proceedings under statutory provisions against such ineligible persons. 4. Complete this exercise preferably within three months to provide shelter to the eligible homeless/landless persons without further delay.

The case has been listed after three months for the State of Punjab to submit a compliance report.