- (1.) This order shall dispose of five appeals, i.e. Letters Patent Appeals No. 2318 to 2322 of 2011, as the same are arising out of the common order dated 28.9.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby five separate writ petitions (CWPs No. 16091 of 1990, 411, 412, 492 and 493 of 1991), filed by the appellants/predecessors of the appellants against the separate orders dated 25.7.1989 and 30.1.1990 (Annexures P-1 and P-2), passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sirsa and the Collector, Sirsa, respectively, as well as the common order dated 12.10.1990, passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, have been dismissed. -LPA No. 2318 of 2011- In this case, Gram Panchayat, Village Jhorarh Rohi (respondent No. 1 herein) filed application under Section 7 (2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (As Applicable to Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, for eviction of Gujjar Singh (predecessor of the appellants) from 267 Kanals 7 Marlas of land, situated in village Jhorarh Rohi, claiming that the said land is shamilat deh under Section 2(g) of the Act and has vested in the Gram Panchayat under Section 4 of the Act and the same is in his illegal occupation. Gujjar Singh contested the said application, claiming that he was in cultivating possession of the said land prior to coming into force of the Act, without payment of any rent, therefore, in view of clause (ii) of Section 4(3) of the Act, the said land is exempted from vesting in the Gram Panchayat. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide order dated 25.7.1989 (Annexure P-1), after re-considering the matter on remand by the Collector, came to the conclusion that predecessor of the appellants has proved his possession more than twelve years prior to the commencement of the Act only with regard to 11 Bighas 13 Biswas, which on being converted came to be 58 Kanals 5 Marlas. It was further held that predecessor of the appellants failed to prove his possession more than twelve years prior to the commencement of the Act with regard to 209 Kanals 2 Marlas of land. In this regard, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade observed as under : As per evidence produced by respondent Gujjar respondent was cultivating Khasra No. 366 min measuring 55 Bighas 5 Biswas, vide Ex. D-2, copy of Khasra Girdawari Bishan father of the respondent Gujjar Singh was in possession of Shamlat land since 1930-31 comprised in Khewat No. 363 (3B-8B), 366 min (2B-0B) 370 min (1-0) total measuring 6 Bighas 8 Biswas. Since 1933-34 this entry is in the name of Gujjar Singh, respondent and the area of Khasra No. 366 was changed from 2 Bighas to 3 Bigha 11 Biswas and that of Khasra No. 370 min from 1 Bigha to 0 Bigha 3 Biswas. In the year 1937-38 according to Ex. D-3 the area of Khasra No. 366 became 4 Bighas 2 Biswas, vide Ex. D-4 in the year of 1938-39 Gujjar Singh's cultivation was on Khasra No. 363 (3-0), 366 min (3-12), 368(0-15) and 851/370 (2-18), 363 (3-8) total 11 Bighas 13 Biswas and he continued cultivating to exemption under 4(3)(ii) Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act to only this such area. Afterwards, he was occupied more area and in the year 1955-56 when consolidation took place he was in possession of 55 Bighas as per Ex.D-1 and during consolidation in lieu of this 55 Bighas 5 Biswas, he was allotted land measuring 279 Kanals 13 Marlas. As per above facts, respondent is entitled to exemption under Section 4(3)(ii) for being in possession more than 12 years prior to commencement of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act the land comprised in Khasra No. 366 min (4-12), 368(0-15), 851/370 min (2-18), 363 (3-8), total measuring 11 Bighas 13 Biswas vide Ex.D-5 which on being converted come to 59 Kanals 5 Marlas while he is in possession of 273 Kanals 13 Marlas land of Gram Panchayat. But the Gram Panchayat has moved this application for eviction from 267 Kanals 7 Marlas, therefore, he is in unauthorised possession of 209 Kanals 2 Marlas of land. He is given a choice to choose 58 Kanals 5 Marlas land of his choice but he says that the court may select the numbers itself so in lieu of his land measuring 58 Kanals 8 Marlas, out of the land in his possession land comprised in Rect. No. 81 Killa No. 3 min East (5-0), 8/2 (2-7), 9/1 (4-18), Rect. No. 91 Killa No. 23/2(4-8), 24 (8-0), 25 (8-0), Rect. No. 95 Killa No. (7-7), 10/1 (6-18), 11/2 min (1-0) is exempted under Section 4 (3) (ii) of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act and from the remaining area owned by the Gram Panchayat the respondent is in unauthorised possession, he is ordered to be evicted from the area. Panchayat will be entitled to recover ' 26,000/- from respondent on account of previous unauthorised possession. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, Gujjar Singh (predecessor of the appellants) as well as the Gram Panchayat filed two separate appeals. Both the appeals were dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 30.1.1990 (Annexure P-2) and order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade was affirmed, while making the following observations : I have heard both the parties in both the appeals and have also gone through the file. In both the appeals each of the appellants have not raised any point or produced any ruling from which it could be concluded that Gujjar Singh could not have been evicted from the land from which he has been ordered to be evicted. Similarly on behalf of the Panchayat the law officer has failed to convince me that Gujjar Singh was not entitled for exemption under Section 4 (3) (ii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act which has been granted to him vide order passed by Lower Court. From the documents available on the file it is evident that Gujjar Singh was entitled to exemption under Section 4 (3) (ii) only with regard to land measuring 58K-9M and this much exemption has been granted to him by the order under appeal. With regard to remaining land he has failed to prove his claim and therefore, the order of the eviction passed against him is legally correct. In these circumstances I find no force in both the appeals and hereby dismiss the same. A copy of the judgment be placed on the each file. Both the aforesaid orders were upheld by the Commissioner vide order dated 12.10.1990 (Annexure P-3) and the revision petition filed by Gujjar Singh was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
(2.) Gujjar Singh challenged the aforesaid orders by filing CWP No. 16091 of 1990. Before the learned Single Judge, counsel for the appellants argued that predecessor of the appellants, namely Gujjar Singh, was in possession of the entire land as co-sharer, much prior to 26th January, 1950, therefore, the authorities under the Act have committed grave illegality while ordering eviction of the predecessor of the appellants from the land in dispute. It was also argued that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade has committed grave procedural illegality while not converting the proceedings under Section 7 of the Act in title suit, as a question of title was raised before him, which should have been adjudicated by converting the ejectment proceedings in the title suit.
(3.) The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the predecessor of the appellants, dismissed the writ petition and upheld the orders, passed by the authorities under the Act. It has been found that the predecessor of the appellants has proved his individual cultivating possession prior to 26th January, 1950 with regard to the land measuring 11 Bighas 13 Biswas, equivalent to 58 Kanals 5 Marlas. The said land has been exempted from vesting in the Gram Panchayat. On the remaining land i.e. 209 Kanals 2 Marlas of land, the predecessor of the appellants had failed to prove his possession for more than twelve years prior to commencement of the Act, therefore, he was ordered to be evicted from the same, as that land was not liable to be exempted under Section 4 (3) (ii) of the Act. Regarding the contention that since a question of title was involved in the proceedings, therefore, the Collector should have converted the proceedings in the title suit, it has been observed that it is not mandatory for the Assistant Collector Ist Grade to convert every proceeding under Section 7 of the Act into the title suit, only on being raised a question of title. If from the material placed before the Assistant Collector, he finds that a question of title is involved, only then he is required to convert the eviction proceedings into the title suit. It has been observed that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, while considering the documents available on record, came to the conclusion that claim of the predecessor of the appellants with regard to the remaining land was not supported by any documentary evidence, therefore, qua that land, there was no need to convert the eviction proceedings into the title suit.;