Billu Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

  



                   

 !" #$% %&'(')*+ 

 








 

 
!* ),-.%!/($'&% 

#)01#2#.'#

),-.%!(/($'&% #3%%$4#/%%2#)  %(%)$*  

 


 


   


!
"

!





#)01#2#.'#5#."  






 


 





#$
% &'''(

)*))


)+ *'

)*))
, 
-



.&
/
+
-


  0 
-
 

 




-



 


,
 






.

 


-

1
23
4

 5

&678
2 



9 :5







 


 


- 
,

 
 







9
-:





 



 




 
 

1
%;

7+8

)*))

<)<






















 
,


,



 

 
/
,
 ,
 

 




-




-


 

 

,
,





-

 


 



 



 
 =
,


-

)7 *& )*&.2 >
<.5

 
#
#


 



,
 
 
 

 


-
 
 

-
 

 



> 




, Nagar Council Bareta had claimed that they managing the suit property for the welfare of people and possession has been taken illegally by the plaintiff and they were recovering possession as per law under the Act. Thus the appellant had never filed any suit for declaration stating that he had ownership of the property and only on account of the possession he had sought an injunction.

He did not claim possession on the basis of any title as such and neither he claimed benefit of adverse possession. Initially the eviction petition had been dismissed on 21.02.2018(Annexure P-5) on the premise that there were restraint orders by the civil court. The said order was set aside and matter was remanded to the Collector on 31.05.2018 (Annexure P-6) eventually leading to the eviction order being passed on 26.07.2019 (Annexure P-7). The appeal was thereafter, dismissed by the Collector on 18.05.

 

 

        Raqba. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in State of Haryana through Secretary to Government of Haryana vs. Jai Singh and others; 2022(2) RCR (Civil) 803 to the extent that management and control of such land vest with the Panchayat and it does not revert back to the proprietors. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not erred in any manner while upholding the orders of the eviction. The title issue was never raised before any of the authorities and a simple suit for injuction had been filed which goes on to show that the appellant was well aware that he was not owner of the land. Therefore, Nagar Council Bareta being custodian of land had locus standi as such to seek the eviction which has been granted and in accordance with law. Thus, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.  



#)01#2#.'#"   

#3%%$4#/%%2#)" /06%
/06%    +$1#)/#75 

 
 

$  
 /?@
A?%
$  
 @
A?%