M.M. Punchhi, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to get ended the detention of one Gurdip Singh son of Arjan Singh The said detenue was stated to be in detention in Central Jail. Patiala, under the orders of Collector -cum -Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala. The said detenue, under orders of this Court, was produced before A S. Bains, J., who directed the detenue to be released on interim bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/ -to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar upto 31.3.1980, on which date, the habeas corpus petition was ordered to be finally disposed of. The detenue secured his release thereunder and the matter has now been placed before me
(2.) THE matter appears essentially be one of a civil nature, but since the liberty of and individual is involved and a writ of habeas corpus has been sought, it would be apt to dispose it off on the criminal side. The petition has arisen in the circumstances mentioned here in after. It is concerded(sic) at the Par(sic) by the learned Counsel appearing for the state that a pared(sic) of land in village Dilawarpur Dhakrsha is recorded in revenue papers as Jumla Molkan va. Digar Haodarar Arazi Hasad Raqba and this is the stance of the Petitioner as well The Petitioner claimed that this land was in his cultivating possession. The Gram Panchayat, Dilawarpur Dhakraba, on 21.6.1976, filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (regulation) Act 1986(sic) as amended In 1976 (for a short called "the Common Hands Act') against the detenue for his ejectment from agricultural land measuring 42 Kanal 14 Marlas, on the plea(sic) that the Land in question vested in the Panchayat. The Collector on 9.11.1976 ordered the ejectment of the detenue The detenue filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, which was allowed on February 1, 1979 On the question of ownership of the land the Commissioner in paragraph 23 of her detailed order (Annexure P 3) observed as follow -: - Since the applicant under Section 7 has been totally unable to prove that the land in question vests, or is deemed to have been vested, in the Gram Panchayat by virtue of its, being thamlat deh, which onus(sic)had been cast squarely upon him under the law, it is fuile(sic) to make an appraisal of the evidence, produced by the present Appellant for it is apparent that the provisions of Section 7 were not applicable to this land, when is had not been proved to be shamlat deh ; and the ejectment of the present Appellant therefrom could not, therefore have been ordered even if no evidence had been led by him in support of his plea The impugned order is, therefore, void ab initio and is liable to be quashed on This ground alone, even if to other ground urged by the Appellant is taken into consideration. This judgment is find between the parties subject to a rider given in the last line of the order, which is to the following effect: - However the Panchayat will within its competence to file a fresh application under Section 7 in this case in accordance with law. It is also undisputed that no such application has been made by the Cram Panchayat
(3.) THE description of the land as, aforesaid is in a legal terminology, employed in Rule 10 (ii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Rules 194 (for short called the Consolidation Rules. The said rule contemplates that when during consolidation proceedings it is found that there is no shamlat deh land or such land is considered inadequase the land can be rest(sic) for a village panchayat and for other common purposes under Section 8(3) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short called' the Consolidation of) out of the common pool of the village The proprietary was(sic) in respect of such reserved land shall vest in the proprietary body of the estate concerned and in the column of ownership of the record of rights entry has to be recorded as depicted before. The management of such land has to be done by the Panchayat of the estate or estates concerned on behalf of the village proprietary body and the Panchayat has been given the tight to derive income of the land so reserved for the common need's of the estate on estates concerned It is in the exercise of such right that the said parcel of lard was given to the detenue on Jesse for two years in 1975 at the rate of Rs. 125/ per year and he continue! to be a lease holding over of such period.;