CWP No.210 of 20 IN THE H Piara Singh (sin Ve Director, Rura and others 1. The date w 2. The date w 3. The date w 4. Whether pronounce pronounce 5. The delay judgment, CORAM : HO HO Present : Mr for Mr For LAPITA BANE Pra the Constitution certiorari for qu passed by the D Hoshiarpur-resp the Director, R exercising the p 0 of 2008 (O&M) THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH CWP NO. gh (since deceased) through LRs and Versus Rural Development and Panchayat date when the judgment is reserved date when the judgment is pronounce date when the judgment is uploaded ether only operative part of the ju nounced or whether the full jud nounced delay, if any of the pronounceme ment, and reasons thereof HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPIT Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Sharma (Vasudeva), Ad For respondent No.4-Gram Pancha ANERJI, J. Prayer in the present petition filed itution of India, inter-alia, is for issuan for quashing of order dated Septembe the District Development and Panch respondent No.3 and order dated Se ctor, Rural Development and Panc the powers of Commissioner under t JAB AND HARYANA AT NO.210 OF 2008 (O&M) and another ...Petitioners hayat Department ...Respondents 28.01.2026 ounced 12.02.2026 aded 13.02.2026 the judgment is ll judgment is Full ncement of full Not applicable DEEPAK SIBAL APITA BANERJI a), Advocate, anchayat. n filed under Articles 226/227 of issuance of a writ in the nature of ptember 15, 2004 (Annexure P-2) Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, ted September 13, 2007 passed by Panchayat Department, Punjab nder the Punjab Village Common SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.13 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.210 of 20 Lands (Regulat respondent No. respondents from the pendency of Act. 2. The village Bora wh year 1993-94. land for more th 3. The the 1961 Act (since decease representatives order dated Se original petition Section 7 of the disputed land. application unde within three m Commissioner ( was observed t Section 11 of t deemed that the 4. The Commissioner c 0 of 2008 (O&M) egulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter ref t No.1. The petitioners have also ts from dispossessing the petitioner fr ncy of the writ petition/proceedings u The land in question is situated in K which has been shown as ‘Abadi D According to the petitioners, they ore than 100 years through their foref The Gram Panchayat (GP) filed Act before the Collector for ejectme eceased). The present petitioners tives of the original petitioner. The ed September 15, 2004 observed th etitioner herein, being a respondent of the 1961 Act could produce any do land. Consequently, he directed the under Section 11 of the 1961 Act f ree months before the Court of l ioner (Development)-cum-Collector, H rved that in case the petitioner fail 1 of the 1961 Act within the stipula at the petitioner has no right to owner The original petitioner filed ioner challenging the impugned order ter referred as the “1961 Act”)- also prayed for restraining the oner from the disputed land during ings under Section 11 of the 1961 ted in Khasra No.452 (15K -13M), di Deh’ in the jamabandi for the , they are in possession of Abadi r forefathers. iled a petition under Section 7 of jectment of the original petitioner ners are the heirs and legal The Collector vide impugned ved that neither the GP nor the ndent in the petition filed under any document qua their title to the the original petitioner to file an Act for determination of his title t of learned Additional Deputy ctor, Hoshiarpur. Furthermore, it er failed to file a petition under stipulated time then it would be ownership of the disputed land. filed an appeal before the order passed by the Collector but SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.13 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.210 of 20 the same was d holding that eve was recorded produce the rev the Collector’s o 5. Lea filed the eviction upon the GP to GP. Revenue re deh’ and the G Collector. There law and erroneo filing a petition GP who was panchayat land holding that the 26, 1950 throug to prove its own 6. Mr submits that the disputed land in 7. Thi perused the mat 8. Ad within the ‘Aba 0 of 2008 (O&M) was dismissed by the Commissioner hat even though in the jamabandi for ded as ‘Abadi deh’ but because the he revenue record to show his owners tor’s order merited no interference. Learned counsel for the petitioner viction petition under Section 7 of the GP to show the disputed land being nue records unequivocably indicated the GP had admittedly failed to prov . Therefore, the Collector misdirected rroneously held that the petitioner had tition under Section 11 of the 1961 Ac was seeking eviction of the peti t land had to prove its ownership. The at the original petitioner had to prove through filing of Section 11 application ts ownership on the disputed land. Mr. Sharma, appears on behalf o hat the petitioners are trespassers and and in accordance with law. This Court has heard learned co e material on record. Admittedly, the Collector held tha Abadi deh’ of the village and the pe sioner on September 13, 2007 by di for the year 1993-94 the land the original petitioner did not wnership since January 26, 1950, itioners submits that since the GP of the 1961 Act, it was incumbent being ‘Shamlat deh’ vested in the icated the said land to be ‘Abadi prove its ownership before the rected himself on a proposition of ner had to prove his ownership by 961 Act instead of holding that the e petitioner from the purported . The Commissioner also erred in prove his ownership since January lication instead of directing the GP half of respondent No.4-GP and rs and should be evicted from the ned counsel for the parties and eld that the land in question was the petitioners were in continuous SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.13 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.210 of 20 possession for petitioners had application unde Collector was u September 13, 2 of the view that of law because under Section 7 be ‘Shamlat De erroneously dire the 1961 Act wh same as it had vested in GP. 9. The correct the error of the Indian Ev “Se leg whi per tha The Bhartiya Sakshy 10. Thi has not been app be made to the f 0 of 2008 (O&M) n for more than 100 years. Howev s had to prove that they were own n under Section 11 of the 1961 Act. T was upheld by the Commissioner v r 13, 2007 without application of inde w that both the impugned orders suffer ecause the GP had instituted proceed tion 7 of the 1961 Act and the onus t t Deh’ was on the GP and not on t ly directed the petitioner to file proce Act when the carriage of proceedings it had sought eviction of the petition The Commissioner also misdirec e error of law on the face of record by ian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follow Section 101 Burden of proof: Whoever desires any Court legal right or liability dependent which he asserts, must prove that person is bound to prove the exis that the burden of proof lies on that The said section is pari materia Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. This Court is of the view that the a en appreciated by both the authorities o the following judgments of Apex Co However, he also held that the re owners of the land by filing Act. The said order passed by the ioner vide impugned order dated f independent mind. This Court is suffer from incorrect appreciation roceedings against the petitioner onus to prove the disputed land to t on the petitioner. The Collector proceedings under Section 11 of dings was on the GP to prove the etitioners from the disputed land isdirected himself by failing to cord by the Collector. Section 101 follows: ourt to give judgment as to any dent on the existence of facts that those facts exists. When a existence of any fact, it is said that person.” teria with Section 104 of the at the aforesaid proposition of law orities. A beneficial reference may ex Court: SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.13 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.210 of 20 11. “R (2011) 12 Supre “x 37 ba in wr an em m by th 38 wh m th Se or iss x 12. In “ Society Limited 269, it was opin the burden alwa case. The releva “ 15 bu cl if gr x 13. In t legal representa (2023) 19 Supr 0 of 2008 (O&M) Rangammal v. Kuppuswami a upreme Court Cases 220, the Suprem “xxx 37. It is further well settled that basis of the pleadings of the cont in the suit before the trial court written statement and the nucleu and the contesting case of the def emerges out of that. This basic pr missed not only by the trial court by the first appellate court whic the High Court. 38. Thus, we are of the view, which this appeal arises had been missing the basic principle that th the basis of the pleading of the co Section 101 of the Evidence Ac order to determine on whom the issues which have been determine xxx” In “Union of India and others v. V ited and others” reported in (201 s opined that the trite law was that in a n always lies with the plaintiffs to mak relevant extract thereof is reproduced “xxx 15. It is trite law that, in a suit burden always lies on the plaintiff clear case for granting such a de if any, of the case set up by the ground to grant relief to the plaint xxx” In the recent judgment of “Smriti sentatives v. Prabha Ranjan Debbar Supreme Court Cases 782, it has mi and another” reported in Supreme Court has held as under: that a suit has to be tried on the contesting parties which is filed court in the form of plaint and cleus of the case of the plaintiff e defendant in the form of issues ic principle, seems to have been ourt in this case but consistently hich has been compounded by ew, that the whole case out of been practically made a mess by at the suit should be decided on he contesting parties after which Act would come into play in the burden falls for proving the ined. [Emphasis Supplied] v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases hat in a suit for declaration of title, to make out and establish its clear duced hereinafter: suit for declaration of title, the intiff to make out and establish a declaration and the weakness, the defendants would not be a laintiff. mriti Debbarma (dead) through bbarma and others” reported in t has been held that a person in SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.13 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.210 of 20 possession of th has a legal righ decree of posse ground that the interest in the su the plaintiff bein the basis of whi could not be a ju aforesaid judgm “xx 36. suc Sch of the Sch ass ord ent can Def righ def and disp own 37. cas ass of w 101 the affi ma bac app par pro in t 0 of 2008 (O&M) n of the land exercising ordinary righ al right against the entire world exce possession could not be passed in fa the defendants could not fully es the suit property. The burden of proo eing the party who asserts the exis of which relief is claimed. The weakn be a justification to decree the suit. Th judgment are reproduced hereinafter: “xxx 36. In the above factual backg succeed, she has to establish that Schedule 'A' property, and consequ of possession. The defendants can the plaintiff has established a bett Schedule ‘A’ property. A person i assumed character as the owner, a ordinary rights of ownership, ha entire world except the rightful ow cannot be passed in favour of the Defendants 1 to 12 have not been right, title and interest in the S defendants, being in possession, and save their possession, unless dispossess them has a better le ownership or entitlement to possess 37. The burden of proof to esta case lies upon the plaintiff as this b asserts the existence of a particula of which she claims relief. This is m 101 of the Evidence Act, which st the fact rests with party who s affirmative and not on the party w may not be universal and has ex background of the present case applicable. In terms of Section 102 parties fail to adduce evidence, t proof, no doubt shifts and the shift in the evaluation of evidence, but ry rights of ownership peacefully except the rightful owner and a in favour of the plaintiff on the lly establish their right, title and of proof to establish a title lies on he existence of a state of things on weakness of the defendant’s case uit. The relevant paragraphs of the after: ackground, for the plaintiff to that she has a legal title to the sequently, is entitled to a decree cannot be dispossessed unless better title and rights over the on in possession of land in the er, and exercising peaceably the , has a legal right against the l owner. A decree of possession the plaintiff on the ground that een able to fully establish their he Schedule 'A' property. The would be entitled to protect nless the person who seeks to r legal right in the form of ssession. establish a title in the present his burden lies on the party who cular state of things on the basis s is mandated in terms of Section h states that burden of proving ho substantially asserts in the ty which is denying it. This rule s exceptions, but in the factual case, the general principle is 102 of the Evidence Act, if both ce, the suit must fail. Onus of shifting is a continuous process but this happens when in a suit SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.13 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.210 of 20 for hig the pla title dec xxx 14. In dated Septemb (Annexure P-3) liberty to institu the panchayat la 15. Wi disposed of. 16. Con accordingly. (DEEPAK SIB JUDGE FEBRUARY Shalini Whether speakin Whether reporta 0 of 2008 (O&M) for title and possession, the plainti high degree of probability to shift t the absence of such evidence, the plaintiff and can be discharged on title. The weakness of the defence decree the suit. xx” In view of the discussion herein a ptember 15, 2004 (Annexure P-2) 3) are set-aside. The GP-responde institute proceedings for removal of ayat land after establishing their title in With the aforesaid directions, C Connected application(s), if any, s SIBAL) (LA DGE 12, 2026 speaking/reasoned: Ye reportable: Ye aintiff has been able to create a hift the onus on the defendant. In the burden of proof lies on the d only when he is able to prove nce cannot be a justification to [Emphasis supplied] erein above, the impugned orders 2) and September 13, 2007 pondent No.4 will, however, be at val of illegal encroachments from title in accordance with law. ons, CWP No.210 of 2008 is any, shall also stand disposed of (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.13 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document