Suba Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others
!
"#$% "&'()%#*+,- ),+#),$#-$.+# "&'()%#*+,- ).+( ))-$#
! """"
,+#),$#-$.+# /*0"#$(1 #
$ % &'(
)**+, -
#./# , 0
#./#0-
1
2 3 ( 4
# 2 !* 5 6
! ( 4 &
*
%% 2
( 4 #3 6 % *
1
4 #7/7 $ &'#8
*
( 4 #(3 *
%
*
*
*
3
4 &
2 * * 9 ( 4 &
:
*
*
,-
* 3
)
6
)
%
*
2
*
*
,-
%
2
*
)
*
%
$2 3
4 , 5 $ !!
&
2
#./#
1*
*
%
*
(
,#-
#./# %
*
%
* * *
2 :
2 :
2
!
* 2
2
#./#
.(1) The Collector shall, on an application made to him by a panchayat or by an officer, duly authorised in this behalf by the State Government by a general or special order after making such enquiry, as he may think fit and in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed put the panchayat in possession of the land or other immovable property in the shamilat deh of that village which vests or is deemed to have been vested in it under this Act and for so doing the collector may exercise the powers of a revenue court ·in relation to the execution of a decree for possession of land under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887"
<
* %
*
,-% 2
2
#./# 2 2%
* 22 2
2 :
2
!
* 2
4
2
*% * 2
#./#
1
%
#./#2
)
#./# % 2
6
%
* 2
*
*
*
* %
*
*% *
)
2
*
2
=
6
%
* %
* > >
% 2
*
! 2
$
#./#
!*
*
#./#
? 9
# 6 "#$% & '() $'" *# //
6 /
6
%
*
"#$% & '()$'" *# ' +,--+%,!' % &$ = &''. $
%
*
@
;
2
*
*
** 2
2*
**
> **
*
*
*
#./#
9
*
*
%
**
22
* 2
%
**
2 2
** 2* %
* *
22
*
**
.
22
%
#./# 2
* ;
2
"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 & / -/
&% 0 '01- 2 33, 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 4 #5#" /
- $ '()6 0 '01- 2 .
3, 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 a 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 not 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."
$
* % % *
*
2 *
%
,-
%
A** B
% 2*
** 2*
2 2
%
,-
2*
* 2*
**
*
*
** %
* *
2 2
% *
2
*
*
#./#
% %
3
;
* ,-
2
*
* 2
,-
$
* ,-
3%
*
** **
2 %
*
% *
* *
22
** *
2* %
*
2 %
*
2
2
**
** %
**%
* *
22
*
2*
4 =*
2
!*
:
2
% *
#./#
72
.
1
* *
)
% 2
)
2
2 >
#'
3%
2
%
#./#
)
9
*
%
%*
;
##
C
#&
,-2D
0,+#),$#-$.+#1 *+ 8) 0.+( ))-$#1 *+ 8) 7
!/
39 :
;:
3
2 ;: