Judgment:
Ashok Bhan, J.
1. Gram Panchayat Bhaniri has filed this petition impugning order Annexure P2 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Patiala, treating the proceedings taken by the revenue officers for giving possession of the land in dispute to the petitioner as cancelled.
2. Petitioner Gram Panchayat had given the land in dispute to Harnek Singh and Harchand Singh respondents No. 2 and 3 respectively on lease. Respondents No. 2 and 3 refused to vacate the land. Treating them to be in unauthorised possession of the land, Gram Panchayat filed application Under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Respondents No. 2 and 3 also filed applications Under Section 11 of the Act with a prayer that they be declared as owners of the land because the land in their possession was not shamlat deh. Applications filed by the Gram Panchayat as well as by respondents No. 2 and 3 were disposed of by the Collector together on 28.1.1991. Collector held that the land was not shamlat deh and, therefore, Gram Panchayat could not eject respondents No. 2 and 3.
3. Gram Panchayat filed four appeals against the order of the Collector before the Additional Director of Panchayats (exercising the powers of the Commissioner). Respondents No. 2 & 3 did not appear in spite of service and were ordered to be proceeded ex parte. Appellate Authority accepted the appeal on 3.7.1992 and set aside the order of the Collector. Respondents No. 2 and 3 challenged the order of Additional Director of Panchayats by filing two different writ petitions 10333 and 10334 of 1992. While issuing notice of motion, High Court stayed the dispossession of respondents No. 2 and 3 from the land in their possession. In the meanwhile respondents No. 2 and 3 approached the Joint Development Commissioner (exercising the powers of Commissioner) for setting aside the ex parte order. Ex parte order dated 3.7.1992 was set aside on 24.2.1993 and the case was remanded to the Appellate Authority for decision on merits.
4. Appeals came up for hearing before the Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab, on merits. The appeals filed by the Gram Panchayat were accepted on 11.5.1994 and the order of the Collector dated 28.1.1991 was set aside. Harnek Singh filed CWP 15887 of 1994 in this Court challenging the order dated 11.5.1994 passed by the Appellate Authority. Similarly another writ petition was filed by respondent No. 3. CWP 15887 of 1994 filed by Harnek Singh was disposed of by this Court on 31.3.1995 copy of which has been attached as Annexure R3 with the replication.
5. After the decision of the case by the Appellate Authority on merits, petitioner filed an application for obtaining possession. Petitioner was delivered possession of the land in dispute. Meanwhile respondents No. 2 and 3 approached the revenue authorities to cancel the proceedings for giving possession to the petitioner as dispossession of respondents No. 2 and 3 from the land in dispute had been stayed by this Court. On this representation, the impugned order Annexure P2 has been passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Patiala.
6. Counsel for the parties have been heard.
7. CWP 10333 and 10334 of 1992 had been filed against the order of Additional Director of Panchayats (exercising the powers of Commissioner) dated 28.1.1991. Order of the Additional Director of Panchayats was set aside by the Appellate Authority itself on 24.2.1993 and after that a fresh order was passed on merits after hearing the parties on 11.5.1994. On setting aside of the ex parte order passed by the Appellate Authority CWP 10333 and 10334 of 1992 became infructuous. Respondents filed writ petitions impugning the order passed on merits by the appellate Authority. The said writ petitions have been dismissed. Copy of the order passed in one such petition (C.W.P. No. 15887 of 1994) has been attached as Annexure R3 in which it has been held that as respondents No. 2 and 3 had been shown as lessees in the Jamabandi for the year 1985-86, they could not set up a title adverse to the landlord and claim to be the owner of the land. It was further held that respondents No. 2 and 3 had lost possession of the land during the pendency of the writ petition.
8. Case of the petitioner Gram Panchayat has throughout been that they have been put in possession of the land in dispute. Act of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) cancelling the proceedings for handing over possession of the land to the Gram Panchayat under the circumstances cannot be sustained. Respondents No. 2 and 3 being the lessees could not claim to be landlord and deny the title of the original owner. It has been found in CWP 15887 of 1994, that petitioner had lost possession of the land during the pendency of the writ petition.
9. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order Annexure P2 cancelling the proceedings for giving possession of the land to the petitioner cannot be sustained. Accordingly, order Annexure P2 is quashed. This writ petition stands allowed with no order as to costs.