Hari Singh vs Piare Lal

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This judgment will dispose of L.P.A. Nos. 351 and 352 of 1990 as they arise out of the common judgment of the

learned Single Judge in CWP No. 4444 of 1987 and 5442 of 1986.

It is necessary to state brief facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions. One Puran son of Kanhaya occupied the land vested in the Gram

Panchayat some time prior to 1963 and also constructed a residential house in that land. Thereafter one Piare Lal who is the 1st respondent in both

these LPAs filed an application u/s 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, for ejectment of the said Puran. The said

application of Piare Lal was allowed by the Collector. Thereafter challenging the orders, 4/5 appeals and revisions were filed to the authorities by

Puran and also he filed a suit in the civil Court. It is not necessary for us to go into the details of the various proceedings taken by Puran. For

disposal of these L.P. As suffice to say that Puran was unsuccessful in his attempt to establish his title to the land. Thereafter he applied for

purchase of the land under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. The Director of Panchayats

ultimately granted permission to Puran to purchase the land. The Gram Panchayat also passed a ""resolution agreeing for the purchase of land by

Puran. CWP No. 4444 of 1987 was filed by Piare Lal against the orders permitting Puran to purchase the land. Puran filed CWP No. 5442 of

1986 challenging the orders of eviction passed by the revenue authorities u/s 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The

learned Single Judge dismissed CWP No. 5442 of 1986 filed by Puran and allowed CWP No. 4444 of 1987 filed by Piare Lal.

Challenging the decision of the learned Single Judge in the above writ petitions, these two LPAs have been filed under Clause X of the Letters

Patent.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that Puran encroached upon the Panchayat land

prior to 1962 and constructed a residential building in the same. Since then he and his family members have been residing therein. Here it may be

noted that Puran died during the pendency of these proceedings and his legal representatives have been brought on record in these L.P.As. Thus

the admitted position is that Puran and his family members have been living in the building constructed in the land over 35 years. It is also an

admitted fact that the Gram Panchayat was not interested in evicting Puran from the land. It also passed a resolution to sell the land to Puran. The

Director of Panchayats also accorded approval under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964

permitting the Gram Panchayat to sell the land to Puran. It is also borne out from the record that Puran deposited a sum of Rs. 7,933.80 on

24.6.1987 towards the cost of land measuring 203 sq. yards only.

The only question before us is whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is just to order eviction of Puran when he and his family

members have been living in the house constructed in the land for more than 35 years especially when the Gram Panchayat has no objection for

selling the land to Puran having passed a resolution to that effect even in the year 1987. Piare Lal, who filed the application earlier in the year 1963

for eviction of Puran is not personally interested in this land. He never stated anywhere that this land has been used or is being used for common

purpose of the villagers. Admittedly, the land was never used for any common purposes, though it is a Shamilat deh. It was originally recorded as a

pond but in fact no pond existed for the last 4/5 decades. Piare Lal filed an application for eviction not only against Puran, but also against 9

others. Thus, it is clear that pond never existed, but it was encroached upon by some of the villagers including Puran about more than 40 years ago

and they have constructed houses thereon. Learned counsel for Piare Lal for the first time stated before us if the land is put to auction, Piare Lal

may purchase it. This contention does not appeal to us as it has been urge before us for the first time.

Now the question is whether the LRs of Puran, who died during the pendency of these proceedings, can be permitted to purchase the land. It is

now settled that High Court can pass any appropriate order which is just and equitable on the facts and circumstances of the case.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we art of the opinion that it is quite unjust to dislodge the appellants herein, who have been residing in

the house constructed by their predecessor more than 35 years ago. Therefore, we feel just and proper to permit the appellants to purchase the

land at the prevailing market price which is in accordance with the order of the Director of Panchayats which was the subject matter of challenge in

CWP No. 5442 of 1986. The Gram Panchayat in its meeting held on 5.10.1997 also passed a resolution deciding that LRs: of Puran may be

allowed to live peacefully in the house constructed over the land in dispute.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that it is just and proper to allow the appellants in these appeals to purchase

the land by paying a sum of Rs. 28,000/- in addition to the amount of Rs. 7,933.80 which was paid by Puran to the Gram Panchayat on

24.6.1987 within a period of three months from today.

Accordingly, we dispose of the Letters Patent appeals with a direction that the appellants shall deposit a sum of Rs. 28,000/- with the Gram

Panchayat Rathdhana, district Sonepat within a period of three months from today. In case they fail to deposit the said amount within the aforesaid

period, these appeals shall stand dismissed. If the appellants deposit the amount of Rs. 28,000/- as directed above within the stipulated period, the

Gram Panchayat shall execute the Sale Deed in favour of the appellants. No order as to costs.