P.S. Patwalia, J. - (1.) The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the Collector, Kapurthala ordering the ejectment of the petitioners under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961 by treating them as unauthorised occupants on Shamlaat land belonging to the Gram Panchayat and order dated 19.12.2002 passed by the Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab rejecting an appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the Collector, Kapurthala.
(2.) The petitioners are residents of village Tayabpur, Tehsil and District Kapurthala. It is their claim that they are in possession of land bearing Khewat and Khatauni No. 184/235 Khasra No. 271/1. They further claim that they are in possession of the land in dispute for the last 40 to 50 years and have constructed a para house as also made other pacca construction on the said land. It is further their case that they have planted 15 to 20 safeda trees on the said land which are about 19 years old. The Gram Panchayat of the village filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for ejectment of the petitioners from the said land. The Gram Panchayat had contended that the said land is recorded as Abadi Deh in the revenue record and is managed by the Gram Panchayat. The land in dispute is under the ownership of the Gram Panchayat but the petitioners are in illegal occupation of the same and are taking undue benefits from the same. The Gram Panchayat had further contended that the petitioners came in possession of the land in 1993 when their grandmother became Sarpanch. In fact it was with the connivance of the then Sarpanch that they came in possession of the said land.
(3.) The Collector, Kapurthala after examining the entire controversy ultimately held as here under : "Argument of both the counsels heard. Record has been minutely perused. Asper jamabandi 1992-93 the land mentioned in head note is recorded as abadi deh in the column of ownership and in the column of cultivation. Respondents have been mentioned as gair marusi. Kind of land is chahi. Except this Abadi of the village is total khasra No. 27, measuring 58 kanals 15 marlas. This land has khasra No. 2711(7-15). As per jamabandi there is no abadi on this land. This land is being cultivated. Asper authorities referred by counsel for respondents abadi deh does not vest in Gram Panchayat nor it comes under the preview of Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act. Section 4A has been added in Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act 1961 by amending the act. Asper amendment abadi deh if is under cultivation then it vest in panchayat. Actual khasra No. of abadi is 27 the area of which is 58 kanals 15 marlas and abadi is on it. The respondents could not prove that this land is their ownership. This land vest in panchayat and respondents are in unauthorised occupation of the same. I Charan Das O.D and P.O.Kapurthala exercising the power of collector Panchayat Lands Kapurthala, exercising the powers under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act 1961 declare the respondents as unauthorised occupants on the sham laat land and order the ejectment of the respondents." Against this order the petitioners preferred an appeal. From the pleadings in this writ petition it becomes apparent that it was the case of the petitioners that as per Section 2 (g) (1) of the Act, Abadi Deh did not come under the definition of Shamlat Deh as it had been excluded from the same. They contended that since the land in dispute and in fact the total khasra No. 27 is Abadi Deh of the village the same is excluded from the definition of Shamlat Deh and does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. They placed reliance on Jamabandis for the years 1992-93 and 1997-98. It was further contended by the petitioners that the reference by the Collector to sub clause 4-A of clause 2 (g) of the Act in his order was not correct as according to the petitioners the said clause had not been incorporated in the Act as applicable to the State of Punjab. The petitioners further contended that the Gram Panchayat had also filed ejectment applications against Shri Babu Ram son of Sunder, Shri Gurdev Singh, Joginder Singh, Santokh Singh son of Puran Singh, Harjinder Singh, Harvinder Singh sons of Ram Singh, all residents of the same village who were also in possession of the land forming part of Khasra No. 27 but the said ejectment applications were dismissed by the Collector. They therefore claimed that the order of the Collector deserved to be set aside.;