The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961

Provided that no such compensation shall be given for anyremote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of such'cancellation orvariation. .(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law f0 1 thetimebeing inforce, the amount ofcompensation awarded by [theAssistant Collector of the first grade] under this section shall bepayable bythe panchayat inthe prescribed manner and shall be avalidcharge onthe Sabhafunds.(7) Any party to a 2Isale, lease], contract or agreementaggrieved by any order of [the Assistant Collector of the firstgrade], made under thissection may,within apf.riod ofthirty daysfrom the date of such order, appeal to the [Collector] whosedecisionthereon shallbefinal.COMMENTARYAuction -Eviction -Petitioner's application under Section 10-Afor settingaside auction in favour of respondent No. 3was set aside -Not onlythis evenpetitioner's evictionwasordered inproceedings initiat~d under Section lO-Aofthe Act - Impugned order cannot be sustained - Eviction cannot be orderedwithout taking recourse toSection 7ofthe Act -Parties are directed to put uptheir cas! inappeal whichispending before the Collector against another orderpassed under Section 7ofthe Act -Petition disposed ofwithout expressing anyopinion onthemerits ofthecase-Darshan Singh v.Assistant Collector, 1stGrade,1998H.R.R. 7011. Sales of land in Shamilat deh not to bepre-'t!mptible.--Notwithstanding anything contained in the Punjap Pre-emptionAct, 1913,no sale of land in shamilat deh made by a Panchayatshall be pre-emptible and no decree ofpre-emption inrespect ofany such sale shall be executed after the commencement of thisAct.COMMENTARYCivil Court decree -A decree was passed by CivilCourt in favour ofthepetitioner qua the suit land in 1970before the Amending Act, 1976-Land indispute excluded the suit land from the definition ofShamlat Deh -Petitionercannot be ejected from the suit land under Section 7of the Act as the decreebecame final inviewof Gram Panchayat's case. 1991PU 41- Surjan Singh v.Gram Panchayat, 1995HRR 445= 1995PU 423.Civiljurisdiction -Necessary party -Asuitfordeclaration wasfiledbythepetitioner/plaintiff totheeffectthat theyweretheownerofpossession ofthesuitland and the same waswronglyshown inthe revenue records belonging to theGram Panchayat -The question involvedwaswhether the CivilCourt could takecognizance ofthecaseinviewofSs.11and13oftheVillageCommon LandsAct-Held that sincetheGraULPanchayat hadraised thepleathat thesuitlandwasapart of the Shamlat Deh and that·the plaintiffs had no right or title in it, thequestion hastobedecided bytheCollector onlyu/s11oftheAct andnotbytheL Substituted byHaryana Act No. 47 of 19732.Substituted byHaryana Act No. 34of 1974