GRAM PANCHAYAT KHIALA Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR PANCHKULA COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment, we propose to dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 345, 302, 344, 346, 347 and 348 of 1986 as common questions arise therein and have been directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated February 13,1986, allowing the writ petitions and quashing the orders Annexures P-2 and P-3. For facility of ready reference, the facts have been taken from Letters Patent Appeal No. 345 of 1986.

(2.) CHHAJU Ram respondent is a landowner within the revenue estate of village Khiala, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, In the year 1960-61, during consolidation proceedings, 873 kanals of land were carved out as Mustarka Malkan after imposing a pro-rata cut on the landowners. The appellant Gram Panchayat believing that as the land was shown as Mustarka Malkan, the right to manage the same vested in the Gram Panchayat and as such, they could evict the landowners who were in possession thereof so that the land could be leased out for deriving income for the Gram Panchayat. In order to achieve this object, an application was filed under Section 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Recovery) Act, 1973 read with Section 3 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat (Common Purposes Land, (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1976 before the District Development and Panchayat Officer. The landowner respondents pleaded that the land did not belong to the Gram Panchayat, nor was it shamlat deh and they were in possession as co-shares and as such, the application was misconceived. The District Development and Panchayat Officer vide order dated November 11, 1983 (Annexure P-2) to the petition, held that as the land had been shown as Mustarka Malkan, it was to be kept for common purposes of the village and, therefore, its management vested in the Gram Panchayat and, accordingly, ordered the eviction. The appeal filed by the landowners was dismissed as time barred by the Joint Director, Panchayat vide order Annexure P-3. The orders Annexures P-2 and P-3 were successfully challenged and the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petitions observed that no land could be reserved under the consolidation scheme for the income of the Gram Panchayat as held by the Supreme Court in Bhagat Ram. v. State of Punjab and Ors. , (1976) 78 Punjab Law Reporter, 287. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the Gram Panchayat has filed the present appeals.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records with their assistance.