- (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.4.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 5832 of 2009) filed by the appellants, challenging the orders dated 16.11.2006 and 10.6.2008 (Annexures P-8 and P-9) passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Yamuna Nagar; and the Collector, Yamuna Nagar, respectively, ordering their eviction from the land in question, was dismissed.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, as well as the orders, passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and the Collector. In this case, the Gram Panchayat of village Rampur Kamboyan/ Bihta, Block Bilaspur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (As Applicable to Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the appellants for their eviction from the land in dispute, claiming that they were in illegal and unauthorised occupation of the land in dispute, which vested in the Gram Panchayat. The appellants contested the application by alleging that the Gram Panchayat was not the owner of the land in dispute and it did not fall under the definition of shamilat deh. It was also alleged that the land in dispute was not reserved for any common purpose of the village. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, on the basis of the revenue record available on record, held that in the revenue record, the land in dispute was recorded as shamilat deh and as per Section 2 (g) (i) of the Act, such land vests in the Gram Panchayat. The possession of the appellants on the land was found to be illegal and unauthorised. They were ordered to be evicted and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- per hectare per annum was also imposed upon them for illegal use and occupation of the land. The Collector also affirmed the said findings.
(3.) During the course of arguments, it has not been disputed that in the revenue record, the land in question was described as Shamilat Deh Hassab Hissa Halsari. In view of Section 2 (g) (1) of the Act, such land falls under the definition of 'shamilat deh' and under Section 4 of the Act vests in the Gram Panchayat. Though before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, the appellants did not claim that they were in continuous possession of the land in dispute prior to 26th January, 1950, yet before the Collector and the learned Single Judge, on the basis of the jamabandi for the year 1945-46, they raised a plea that they were in individual cultivating possession of the land in dispute prior to 26th January, 1950. The Collector as well as the learned Single Judge, after considering the said submission, came to the conclusion that the said jamabandi did not prove possession of the appellants on the land in question, because it was not found that the said jamabandi pertained to the disputed land.;