Roshan Lal vs District Development and Panchayat Officer/Collector and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition with a prayer that the order dated April 5, 2001 passed by the first respondent be quashed. By this order, the authority has found as a fact that the land in dispute has been in possession of the claimants for a period of more than 12 years prior to the year 1961. Thus, they are not liable to be evicted therefrom. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.

The private respondents filed a petition for a declaration that they were owners of the land in dispute and that the entry in the Jamabandi in the name of Panchayat which was impleaded as the respondent filed a reply. After considering of the matter, the District Development and Panchayat Officer exercising the powers of the Collector found that the claimants were the proprietors in the village. Their possession of the suit land was according to their share. The possession was not unauthorised. In fact, they had been in possession for a period of more than 12 years prior to the promulgation of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The possession was uninterrupted. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Mr. Jasbir Singh, learned Counsel submits that the petitioner is the Sarpanch of the Panchayat. However, he has filed this petition in his personal capacity and not as a member of the Panchayat. The sole contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the District Development and Panchayat Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the order. Learned counsel further submits that the continued and uninterrupted possession of the respondents has also not been proved on the file. Thus, the impugned order is vitiated.

On consideration of the matter, we find that the petitioner has no right or title in the land. Still further, it has not been shown that the petitioner was even a party in the proceedings. Thus, he has no locus standi to challenge the order. Even otherwise, we find that the question of jurisdiction was not raised in the reply filed on behalf of the Panchayat. In any event, nothing has been placed on record-or pointed out from the file to show that any of the findings recorded by the authority is based on a wrong assumption of facts or contrary to the evidence on the file. In fact, it has been found that the land owners have been in continuous possession since the year 1945-46. Not an iota of evidence has been placed on file to show that the petitioner has any right, title or interest in the land. Equally, there is nothing to indicate that the Panchayat has right in the property.

No other point has been raised.

In view of the above, we find no merits in this petition. It is, consequently, dismissed in limine.

Sd/- Bakhshish Kaur, J.