Mohinder Singh vs Gram Panchayat Balluana and Others

K. Kannan, J.—There is no representation for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent is present. I proceed to examine the case on the basis of records and with the assistance of learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. The property which was claimed by the petitioner to be in the possession of the petitioner from the year 1965 was the subject matter of a claim by the Panchayat in respect of which an eviction was sought under the Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973. The property was admittedly entered in the jamabandi as the property of the Gram Panchayat and in term of the definition of Shamlat Deh u/s 2(g)(a), exceptions which are mentioned include any property which is partitioned or brought under cultivation by an individual land owner before 26.01.1950. If even according to the petitioner, the property had been in possession only from the year 1965, there is no scope for continuation of possession of property unless he had secured some right from the Panchayat to hold on to the property. Any other occupation without such express permission is bound to be treated as unauthorized and an order of eviction passed on such a basis was perfectly legitimate. I do not find any error in the orders passed by the authorities below for intervention in the writ petition.

The writ petition is dismissed.