MANGE RAM Vs. COLLECTOR, SONEPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition Mange Ram and others, the petitioners, have challenged the order Annexure P.1 dated 10.5.1978 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sonepat, directing ejectment of the petitioners from Rectangle No. 113 in village Nangal Kalan, tehsil and district Sonepat, on an application under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) made by Palle Ram and Kesho Ram, respondents Nos. 3 and 4. This order of ejectment was affirmed on an appeal by the petitioners before the Collector, Sonepat, vide his order dated 29.8.1978, Annexure P.2, which is also assailed in the present petition.

(2.) The case made out by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and as found as a fact by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is that Rectangle No. 113 is a dahana left for common purposes in the scheme of consolidation of holdings in the village. Respondent No. 2 also found that the land is owned by the proprietary body but its administration vests in the Panchayat.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised two contentions. Firstly, he submits that since the land in dispute was in the form of a dahana, i.e. a watercourse, it was the exclusive jurisdiction of the authorities under the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 to take appropriate action if at all it was called for. The learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 and 4, however, contends that no doubt the land was reserved for a dahana, but the same was actually not in existence at the spot. It is not necessary to go into this contention because of the admitted fact that the land in dispute belongs to the proprietary body of the village which was reserved for common purposes and the administration of which was vested in the Panchayat under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. Such land does not form part of shamlat deh within the meaning of section 2 (g) of the Act and proceedings for eviction of a member of the proprietary body or any other unauthorised occupant of such land cannot be taken under section 7 of the Act. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders.