K. Kannan, J. - (1.) Both the writ petitions challenge the order of eviction passed on the applications filed by the Gram Panchayat, Khiala against the respective petitioners in the above writ petitions. The respective contentions in the writ petitions were that the relevant entries in the revenue records against the column of ownership in the jamabandi, it was shown as Mustarka Malkan v. Digar Hakdaran Hasab Rasab Khewat . The contention was that a property, which had been shown as Mustarka Malkan Land must be taken as a property reserved for common purpose vesting in the Panchayat. The defendants respective possession of the property was under authorised and they will liable to be evicted.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contend that the entries only meant that the property was in the hands of proprietors as per the shares and did not make an inference that the property vested with the Panchayat. The Panchayat's basis for the claim is that in terms of Section 2(g)(6) of the Panchayat Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 with the explanation appended that the property must be understood only as reserved for common purpose vesting in Panchayat. The relevant sub-section with explanation reads as under: "2(g)(6) Lands reserved for the common purposes of a village under Section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act, 50 of 1948), the management and control whereof vests in the Gram Panchayat under section 23-A of the aforesaid Act. Explanation:- Lands entered in the column of ownership of record of rights as 'Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Hagdaran Ararzi Hassab Rasad', shall be shamlat deh within the meaning of this section".
(3.) The constitutional validity of the Section was the subject of consideration by Full Bench of this Court in Jai Singh v. State of Haryana, (2003-2)134 P.L.R. 658 and the decision is a complete answer to the contentions raised in the writ petition.;