Judgment:
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has directed the present writ petition for quashing the directions contained in the impugned order dated 30.6.1988 (Annexure P1) passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer (respondent No. l).
2. The matrix of the facts culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal, of present writ petition and emanating from the record is that Gram Panchayat Village Namada (respondent No. 2) moved an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') for ejectment of Rajinder Singh-petitioner from the land in dispute bearing Khewat Khatauni No. 1 14/164 Khasra No. l3//25 measuring 6 kanals situated in village Namada, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, inter-alia, pleading that the land in dispute is a 'shamlat deh' as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act and vests in the Gram Panchayat-respondent No. l. The petitioner has no concern with it but, when he was asked to vacate the same, he refused to do so, which necessitated the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 2) to file the petition under Section 7 of the Act for his ejectment.
3. Petitioner contested the claim of the Gram Panchayat-respondent No. 2 and filed the written statement in which it was pleaded that the land in dispute was 'Banjar Qadim' at the time of enforcement of Pepsu Shamlat Land and the same was never utilized for common purposes of the village. It was not Shamlat Deh as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act. Petitioner improved the land and brought it under cultivation by spending Rs. 3000/- per acre. He claimed that the land in dispute is in his possession as owner since 26.1.1950 and, therefore, Gram Panchayat-respondent No. 2 has no legal right to eject him under Section 7 of the Act.
4. Having completed all the codal formalities, hearing the parties and after going through the record, respondent No. 1 while exercising the powers of Collector under the Act held vide impugned order dated 30.6.1988 (Annexure P1) that the application under Section 7 of the Act was not maintainable and it was kept open that either party can move appropriate petition for the purpose of deciding the question of title of the land in dispute.
5. The petitioner did not feel satisfied with the impugned order and filed the present writ petition.
6. The case set up by the petitioner, in brief, in so far as relevant, was that he is an agriculturist and the land in dispute is entered in the revenue record of the years 1951-52 and 1955-56 as Hasab Rasad Khewat. He alongwith other villagers is rights-holder and share-holder in the khewat. He is also owner in possession of Jumla Malkan land owned by him as per his respective share in it. According to the petitioner, the land in dispute is not a Shamlat Deh as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act. He is owner in possession of the same since 1945 when the partition took place amongst the co-sharers according to their shares in the village. He made it cultivable after spending more than Rs. 3000/- per acre. The case of the petitioner further proceeds that the land in dispute was governed by the provisions of old Pepsu area and was Banjar Qadim land. The land was never used for common purposes by the Gram Panchayat and its nature was recorded as Hasab Rasad Khewat.
7. Levelling variety of allegations in all, according to the petitioner, he is owner in possession of the land in dispute even prior to 26.1.1950 and the Gram Panchayat-respondent has got no right, title or interest in it. That being so, the petitioner challenged the impugned order (Annexure P1) in the manner indicated hereinabove.
8. The Gram Panchayat-respondent No. 2 contested the claim of the petitioner and filed written statement pleading preliminary objection of maintainability of the writ petition. According to the Gram Panchayat-respondent No. 2, the land in dispute vests in it and when the petitioner did not vacate the same, it filed a petition under Section 7 of the Act but as the petitioner raised a question of title, therefore, the Collector dismissed the same being not maintainable with liberty to it (Gram Panchayat) to move again under Section 7 of the Act after getting decided the title from the competent Court of jurisdiction. Respondent No. 1 was stated to have rightly passed the impugned order. However, it was admitted that the land in dispute was Banjar Qadim and was neither used for common purposes of the village nor put to auction by the Gram Panchayat. The mutation was stated to have been entered in the name of Nagar Panchayat during the consolidation proceedings of the village. The Gram Panchayat stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. That is how I am seized of the matter. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, having gone through the record and after bestowal of thought over the entire matter, to my mind, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition, because, as indicated earlier, the bare perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner is claiming that he is owner of the land in dispute being right-holder/share holder and in possession of Jumla Malkan land owned by him in accordance with the respective shares in the holdings. On the contrary, the Gram Panchayat-respondent No. 2 claimed that the land in dispute being Shamlat Deh vests in it. But the petitioner has not produced any relevant revenue record in order to substantiate his pleaded case in the writ petition. Moreover, no revenue record has been brought on record by the petitioner to prove his possession since 1945 as claimed in the petition. A very heavy burden of proof was on the petitioner to prove that the land in dispute was excluded from the shamlat land as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act, but he has utterly failed in this relevant connection. Above being the position and in the absence of any cogent material on record, it cannot possibly be said, at this stage, that the petitioner is exclusive owner and in possession of the land in dispute since 1945 and is excluded from the definition of shamlat land as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act. At the same time, since the Collector vide impugned order dated 30.6.1988 (Annexure P1) has also ignored the revenue record produced by the Gram Panchayat-respondent No. 2 on the ground that such record prepared by the Samiti Patwari cannot be admitted as authentic one.
9. Thus, in other words, both the parties failed to prove their respective pleaded cases in this relevant direction.
10. There is another aspect of the matter which can be viewed from different angle. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 30.6.1988 (Annexure P1) of Collector, Patiala rendered on the application under Section 7 of the Act filed by the Gram Panchayat-respondent No. 2, the operative part of which is in the following fashion:
After hearing both the counsel and perusal of the record on file it is proved that the record which is produced by the Panchayat, is prepared by the Samiti Patwari and this record cannot be admitted as authentic one. IIndly it is necessary to settle the title of the land in dispute. Therefore, this application is dismissed being not maintainable and it is made open that the applicant or parties can move again under Section 7 after getting decided the title.
11. Meaning thereby, the Collector vide impugned order dated 30.6.1988 (Annexure P1) has not decided the actual rights and liabilities and only directed the parties to approach the appropriate authority to settle the question of title of the land in dispute and, thus, the application under Section 7 of the Act filed by the Gram Panchayat-respondent No. 2 was dismissed. Hence, petitioner cannot possibly be said to be aggrieved by impugned order (Annexure P1) in any manner.
12. Such, thus being the position on record and having regard to the pleadings of the parties, to me, it would also be appropriate to direct the parties to get the question of title decided by the competent authority, that is what, the Collector has rightly directed the parties to do so in this respect. No other irregularity or patent illegality has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order dated 30.6.1988 (Annexure P1), so as to exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, as there is no merit in this writ petition, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
13. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that if either of the party approaches for deciding the question of title then the competent authority would decide the same on merits in accordance with law without being influenced by the aforementioned observations in any manner.