ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,J - (1.) THE prayer made in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the quashment of order dated 18.9.2003 (annexure P-3) passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Gurdaspur exercising the powers of Collector (respondent No. 3) as well as the order dated 11.3.2004 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) exercising the powers of Commissioner (respondent No. 2) whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute measuring 14 marlas and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,88,000/- for the unauthorized use and occupation of the land for a period of 12 years being 20 times of the amount of auction of Rs. 2,450/-.
(2.) IN brief it is the case of the petitioner that he is in possession of the land in dispute measuring 14 marlas (which is adjacent to his house) for the last about 30 years. He has raised the boundary wall and using the same as courtyard and manure pits. According to him, he has also installed a hand pump, toka machine and a manger therein. He had also filed a Civil Suit for the grant of permanent injunction against the Nagar Panchayat, Kalanaur, and its Administrator, restraining them from interfering in his peaceful possession and dispossessing him forcibly and illegally. The requisite injunction was granted by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, vide order dated 31.1.2001 (Annexure P-2). However, liberty was granted to the defendants therein to take possession of the land by adopting the procedure laid down by law. Accordingly, the Gram Panchayat, Kalanaur, moved an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulations Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for getting eviction of the petitioner from the land in dispute and also made a prayer for imposition of penalty upon him to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In order to controvert the allegations contained in the application, the petitioner filed written statement wherein it was pleaded that he had been in possession of the suit land since Consolidation and has constructed a house and raised boundary wall for the last about 30 years. However, on the date fixed for arguments, neither the petitioner nor his counsel put in appearance. Consequently, the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Gurdaspur (respondent No. 3) vide ex parte order dated 18.9.2003 (Annexure P-3) allowed the application filed by the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 4) and ordered the eviction of the petitioner and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,88,000/- for the unauthorized use of the land in dispute. The appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) (respondent No. 2) vide order dated 11.3.2004 (Annexure P-4). Both the orders passed respectively by respondent Nos. 3 and 2 are under challenge in the present petition. In order to controvert the allegations contained in the petition, the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 4) filed a detailed written statement wherein a preliminary objection has been taken that the petitioner has filed another CWP No. 4710 of 2004 pertaining to the same land wherein he has prayed that he may be allowed to exchange the said land with the land belonging to him or he may be allowed to purchase the land in dispute at market value. Another preliminary objection raised by respondent No. 4 is that the possession of the land in dispute has already been taken by it vide Rapat Roznamacha No. 106 dated 10.11.2003, a copy of which has been annexed with the written statement as Annexure R-4/1. In order to contradict the stand taken by the petitioner that he has been in possession of the land in dispute for the last about 30 years, the Gram Panchayat has pleaded in the Preliminary Objections that the land in dispute was leased out by it to one Pargat Singh son of Dabir Singh for a sum of Rs. 2,450/- per annum for a period of three years in the public auction held on 24.5.1991. A translated copy of the relevant proceedings book has been annexed with the written statement as Annexure R-4/3. The stand taken by the Gram Panchayat is that the petitioner unauthorizedly trespassed into the land in dispute in the year 1996-97.
(3.) THE petitioner filed replication to the written statement filed by the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 4) wherein he stated that he had filed CWP No. 4710 of 2004 when he was not aware of the order dated 11.3.2004 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Joint Development Commissioner (respondent No. 2). It has also been pleaded in the replication that the land in dispute was in the physical possession of the petitioner even today.;