Judgment:
Ranjit Singh, J.
1. The issue raised in the present petition is in regard to the locus of respondent No. 3 to file an application seeking eviction of the petitioner from the land of Gram Panchayat, which was allegedly in an unauthorised possession of the petitioner.
2. On an application filed by respondent No. 3, under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), notice was Issued to the petitioner as well as Gram Panchayat. The petitioner raised a plea that respondent No. 3 had no right to file an application under Section 7 of the Act and that he was a coowner of Khasra No. 922 and 923 where his father had constructed a house. On the request of respondent No. 3, a Local Commissioner was appointed, who submitted his report on 8.8.2005. The petitioner filed objections against this report and mainly contended that he had constructed a house for the last 60 years. The Assistant Collector came to the conclusion that the land in dispute was in the ownership of Gram Panchayat and was reserved for gair mumkin chappar. As per the demarcation report, the petitioner had encroached upon the disputed land i.e. 6 marlas by raising construction. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner is also dismissed. The Commissioner also observed that the petitioner and the Sarpanch were conniving with each other. As per the Commissioner, the Sarpanch should have defended on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, who not only failed to defend but filed reply favouring the petitioner. The petitioner has accordingly impugned these orders through the present writ petition and has primarily raised submission that respondent No. 3 was not competent to file this application under Section 7 of the Act and that such application was not maintainable.
3. While issuing notice of motion, no stay was granted in favour of the petitioner. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the official respondents. By way of preliminary submissions, it is pointed out that the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat was in connivance with the petitioner and that is why he did not take any step to get the Gram Panchayat land vacated. Respondent No. 3, being resident of the village, had filed this application, which was reserved for gair mumkin chappar, being used for common purpose of all the villagers. Accordingly, it is prayed that no interference may be called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The action of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer in directing action against the Sarpanch is also justified.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
4. By referring to the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, counsel for the petitioner submits that only Panchayat or an officer duly authorised in this behalf by the State Government by general or a special order can file application before the Collector under this Section. Section provides that the Panchayat and the officer duly authorised by the State Government can file the application before the Collector for putting the Panchayat into the possession of a land or other immovable property in shamlat deh of the village. Ordinarily, the persons mentioned in the Section may be held entitled to file the application under the section, but this provision may not fully regulate those cases where Panchayat or a person authorised to file application are seemed to have connived with the person in illegal or unauthorised possession of the land or immovable property. In other words, this provision cannot be read to mean that the persons mentioned therein alone would have locus to file application seeking eviction and removal of encroachment. This conclusion may be inescapable when the provisions of Section 7 are read with the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. These two Sections apparently regulate and operate in the same field. Proviso to Section 7 can be referred to seek support in this regard. It is provided in the proviso that if after receipt of the application and before the Panchayat is put in possession of the land, a question of right, title or interest in such, land or property is raised by any person and prima facie case is made out in support thereof, then the Collector shall direct the person who has raised such question to submit his claim under Section 11 of the Act. It can, thus, be safely taken that both the Sections basically operate in the same field.
5. Section 11 entitles any person or Panchayat claiming right, title or interest in any land to submit to the Collector a statement of his claim in writing etc. When Sections 7 and 11 of the Act are read together, then these would apparently show that any person may have a locus to file such application though Section 7 is apparently restricting right to Panchayat or an officer specified therein. It may need a mention that application under Section 7 is for putting the Panchayat in possession of the land and so the purpose of giving right to the Panchayat or the officer duly authorised in this regard by the State Government. So far as removal of encroachment is concerned or putting the Panchayat in possession of land in shamlat deh is concerned, locus may have to be seen from the angle of an inhabitant of the village. This Court in Shankar and Ors. v. Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab and Ors. : (2004-2) 137 P.L.R. 345 has held as under:
The use of different phraseologies and expressions in the two sections, which largely operate in the same field shows that where the question of title of public land is involved, the Legislature did not want to restrict the locus standi to the Gram Panchayat or an officer authorized by the State. Instead, it has been considered proper to confer locus standi on any person interested in the land of the Gram Panchayat. If Section 11(1) is read with other provisions of the Act, which was enacted to consolidate and amend the law regulating the rights in shamlat deh and abadi deh, it becomes clear that a wider locus standi has been conferred upon the villagers to see intervention of the Collector and/or of the appellate authority to protect the public land vested or deemed to have been vested in the Gram Panchayat.
6. Thus, a person filing an application under Section 7 of the Act can always show his locus and a right to seek eviction of a person, who has encroached upon a common land meant for use of the entire village. Locus will have to be seen from the angle of relief claimed. In the present case, respondent No. 3 had not claimed the relief of putting the Panchayat in possession, but had made a grievance that 18 marlas of land was encroached by the petitioner and the prayer was made to direct the petitioner to vacate the possession of the land. This prayer was made in the context that the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat had refused to make a move in the matter to get the encroachment removed and so respondent No. 3 had moved an application in the interest of the village community. Respondent No. 3 in this application had prayed before the Collector to direct the Sarpanch to initiate proceedings by stepping into the shoes of the applicant as he was not doing so being in league with the petitioner. The prayer accordingly was made before the Collector either to direct the Sarpanch or the Panchayat Officer etc. to take cognizance of the matter without any technical objection. The respondent as such, in my view, had clearly shown locus in this case to maintain this application.
7. Locus otherwise is to be seen on the basis of cause and the relief sought. Any resident of the village would have interest and the locus to seek eviction of a person from land meant for common use of all. A resident of a village, who has an interest in a property, which is meant for common use of the villagers, can certainly have a grievance, if the property is unauthorisedly occupied or encroached upon by any person. This Court in Shankar's case (supra), has held that any villager can approach the Collector to protect the interest of shamlat land vested in Gram Panchayat. In Gadde Vendateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. : A.I.R. 1966 Supreme Court 828, it was observed that anybody who has been prejudicially affected by the act or omission complained of, can apply, even though he may not have a proprietary or even a fiduciary interest in the subject matter. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and Ors. : A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court 578, it was observed that the petitioner must be a person prejudicially affected by the act or omission, which is under challenge. Since the land under the occupation of the petitioner was meant for common use, respondent No. 3 can be said to be a person who could be prejudicially affected. In large number'of cases, the person has been allowed to maintain petitions, which are in public interest as when public interest is affected by the action, an organisation, which has a special interest in the subject matter or Member thereof, should be allowed to apply. Where a public injury is committed by an act or omission, which is contrary to law or Constitution, any member of the public can maintain an action for redressing that public injury provided only he acts bonafide and riot for personal or private gain or out of political motivation. Though may not be applicable but reference here can be made to the provisions of Section 7 of the Act as applicable to State of Haryana, where an inhabitant of the village, apart from the Panchayat, Block Development and Panchayat Officer and Social Education and Panchayat Officer are held entitled to file application, seeking eviction of a person who is in an unauthorised or wrongful possession of a land or other immovable property in shamlat land.
8. The Panchayat, as is seen in this case, is a conniving party. The situation can not be rendered as helpless as is being made out that a person in such a case can be allowed to encroach upon or remain in unauthorized possession of the shamlat land as he has managed the Panchayat. Section 7 of the Act may be relevant to see locus on the part of a person to file application but to restrict the provision in straight jacket would lead to unjust consequences. This is a provision authorizing some of the persons or authorities to file an application under Section 7 of the Act and can not be read to mean that all others having locus in the cause are dis-entitled to file application or make a move seeking eviction of an unauthorized occupant over a shamlat land, when reasonably the provision is to be read in conjunction with Section 11 of the Act. The interpretation put by the petitioner on this provision to say that respondent No. 3 would not have locus to file this application appears stretched keeping in view the factual position and, thus, can not be accepted. In any event, now this action of respondent No. 3 seems to have received the stamp of approval of the authorities who have found that the Sarpanch was seen conniving with the petitioner, for which an action has also been taken against him. This is in the context of prayer made in the petition before the Collector to direct the Sarpanch or the Officer to move such an application. The issue of locus, thus, would not be attracted in the case in strict sense. This is not a fit case to exercise writ jurisdiction to interfere in the impugned order passed on this technical ground, which is otherwise also not fully made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.