Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - (1.) WE have two petitions. The issue is one. Have the petitioners encroached upon the land belonging to the Panchayat ? Counsel are agreed that both the petitions can be disposed of by one order. They have referred to the facts in C.W.P. No. 14318 of 1998. These may be briefly noticed.
(2.) THE respondent -Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 alleging that the petitioner had encroached upon land measuring 5 kanals and 17 marlas. It was alleged that he was cultivating this land and had put sticks etc. since the last 5 to 10 years. It was prayed that he be ejected and also fined. The petitioner was given notice of the application. He filed a reply. He inter alia averred that the land as described in the application "is Gair Mumkin Hill and .....is not cultivable..... The answering respondents (the present petitioner) never occupied the alleged land measuring 5 kanals 17 marlas nor he is in possession of the said land in dispute". He further asserted that "in the revenue record, the possession of the applicant (the Gram Panchayat) has been shown."
(3.) THE matter was considered by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Narnaul. Vide order dated April 25, 1997 he held that "the defendant has illegally occupied an area of 5 kanals 10 marlas of the disputed land in khasra No. 115, and 7 marlas in khasra No. 125 by cultivation and putting sticks etc.....Therefore, the defendant is ordered to be ejected from 5 kanals 17 marlas of encroached area .....The defendant due to encroachment is fined @ Rs. 5,000/ - per hectare per year from the date of filing this application". A copy of this order is on record as Annexure P -4. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector. He dismissed the appeal with the observation that "according to the report of measurement dated 11.10.1992 Ex.P -2, the appellant has illegally occupied the disputed land by putting sticks and by cultivation which was certified by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade after visiting the spot. It is not proper to give the appellant more opportunity to lead his evidence. No interference is called for in order under appeal dated 25.4.1997.....". A copy of this order is on record as Annexure P5.;