- (1.) The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 3.4.1987 (Annexure P-4) passed by Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab (exercising powers of "Commissioner") upholding the plea of the respondent-Gram Panchayat that the Gram Panchayat is owner of the suit land comprised in Khasra Nos. 54/22, 57//20 and 64//3 situated in village Mavi Sappan, Tehsil and District Patiala.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1961 Act") for ejectment of the petitioners in December, 1982. The petition was withdrawn on a statement made by counsel for the Gram Panchayat that the panchayat would file a petition under Sections 7 and 11 of the 1961 Act. The petition filed by the Gram Panchayat seeking declaration of ownership of the suit land was dismissed by the Collector (D.D.P.O.), Patiala, vide order dated 12.6.1985 (Annexure P- 3). The Gram Panchayat filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the appeal was accepted by the Joint Director, Panchayats (Punjab) (exercising powers of "Commissioner") vide order dated 3.4.1987 (Annexure P-4), impugned in the writ petition. It has been argued with vehemence that the impugned order is patently illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. It is argued that the civil Court passed a decree in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners has declared him owner of the land, in dispute. It is further submitted that as the question of title in respect of the suit land stood already adjudicated by a civil Court prior to 1976, the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to ignore the decree of the civil Court or to record a finding of title in favour of the Gram Panchayat. It has been submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the suit land prior to 26.1.1950 and, therefore, the land is excluded from the definition of Shamilat Deh by virtue of Section 2(g)(viii) of "the 1961 Act".
(3.) Counsel for the Gram Panchayat has submitted that the decree of the civil Court is the result of collusion between the petitioners and the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. It has been argued that the petitioners have failed to establish their plea of individual cultivating possession of the suit land on or before 26.1.1950. It has been further argued that the Appellate Authority has dealt with all the disputed issues correctly and recorded a finding of fact in favour of the Gram Panchayat declaring it owner of the suit land.;