- (1.) Santa Singh has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ certiorari quashing the proceedings initiated by the respondents against him under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, (for short 'the 1961 Act').
(2.) Briefly stated the case of the petitioner, as given in the petition, is that one Sansar Chand, a proprietor of village Pehowa, Tehsil Guhla, District Kurukshetra, held a share in the land which was shamilat deh as perceived by the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953. It has been in his individual cultivating possession much before 26th January, 1950. In view of the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 2(g) of the 1961 Act. it does not fall within the definition of shamilat deh and has not come to vest in the Gram Panchayat of the village. Out of this land, Sansar Chand transferred land measuring 27 Kanals and 16 Marlas by way of perpetual lease deed dated 29th August, 1962, in favour of the petitioner with effect from Kharif 1962. The petitioner has been in cultivating possession of this land even since then. He has spent huge sums of money in levelling and improving this land. That sometimes in May/June, 1976, the petitioner learnt that respondent No. 2 had threatened to evict the petitioner from the land under his cultivation on the ground that he was in unauthorised occupation thereof. No notice, as required by rule 20 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 ('Rules' for short) had been issued to the petitioner specifying the grounds on which the petitioner may have been treated as unauthorised occupant of the land in dispute. On coming to know about this fact the petitioner got the records of the case inspected and learnt that Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Thanesar, respondent No. 2, had moved an application before the Assistant Collector lst Grade, Kurukshetra, respondent No. 1, for ordering the eviction of the petitioner under section 7 of the Act from the land in dispute. The petitioner appeared before respondent No. 1 and filed an application stating inter alia that the application under section 7 of the Act was incomplete and did not disclose from which date and in what manner the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the land in dispute. He further explained that he had taken this land along with some other land on perpetual lease from Sh. Sansar Chand in the year 1962 and was in possession thereof since then. The petitioner, therefore, could not be termed to be in an unauthorised occupation. The petitioner has further averred that after recording the statement of respondent No. 2 in support of the application for eviction he has not allowed the petitioner any opportunity to substantiate his claim. Apprehending his eviction the petitioner filed this writ petition.
(3.) The Motion Bench stayed the dispossession of the petitioner.;