SARVSHRI TEJA SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT (GRAM SABHA) HALQA BORAN
LAWS(P&H)-1983-8-129
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on August 17,1983

SARVSHRI TEJA SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
GRAM PANCHAYAT (GRAM SABHA) HALQA BORAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Teja Singh and others have filed this petition for the quashing of the orders of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bassi, respondent No. 2 dated 7th April, 1971; the Divisional Agricultural Production Officer, Patiala, respondent No. 3 dated 24th January, 1972 and the Commissioner, Patiala Division, respondent No. 4, dated 28th March, 1973 Annexures A,B and D respectively.
(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy, certain salient features of the case may be noticed:- The Gram Panchayat, Halqa Boran, made an application to the Assistant Collector under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for possession on the ground that the petitioners and some other proprietors were in unauthorised occupation of the land measuring 441 Kanals and 14 Marlas. The petition was contested by petitioners to the extent of their share in the land. The Assistant Collector, respondent No. 2, on consideration of the entire matter, found that the land was Shamilat Deh and had vested in the Gram Panchayat. Consequently, an order of ejectment was passed on April 7, 1971 (copy Annexure A to the petition). Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Assistant Collector, two appeals were preferred, one by the petitioners and the other by Tarlok Singh and others. Both the appeals were heard by the Collector, who, vide his order dated January 24, 1972 (copy Annexure B to the petition), dismissed the same. Still dissatisfied, the petitioners and others preferred second appeal, but did not succeed, as the same were dismissed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala vide his order dated March 28, 1973. (copy Annexure D to the petition). The petitioners, through this petition, as earlier observed, call in question the legality and propriety of the aforesaid orders.
(3.) In response to the notice of motion,the respondents have put in written statement in which the material controversial questions raised in the petition have been controverted and the claim put forth has been contested.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.