Who Must Prove Panchayat Ownership? Punjab & Haryana High Court Says Burden Lies on Gram Panchayat, Not Occupant
Case Name: Piara Singh (since deceased) through LRs and Another v. Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department and Others
Date of Judgment: 12 February 2026
Citation: CWP No.210 of 2008
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that in proceedings initiated by a Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 seeking eviction, the burden to establish that the land is ‘Shamlat Deh’ vested in the Panchayat lies upon the Panchayat. The authorities erred in directing the occupant to prove ownership by filing an application under Section 11 of the 1961 Act. The Court reiterated the principle under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the burden of proof lies upon the party asserting a legal right.
Summary: The petitioners challenged order dated 15.09.2004 passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Hoshiarpur and order dated 13.09.2007 passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department exercising powers of Commissioner under the 1961 Act.
The land in dispute comprised Khasra No.452 (15K-13M), village Bora, shown in the jamabandi for the year 1993-94 as ‘Abadi Deh’. The petitioners claimed possession for over 100 years through their forefathers.
The Gram Panchayat initiated proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 Act seeking ejectment. The Collector observed that neither the Gram Panchayat nor the petitioner could produce documentary proof of title. While holding that the land was recorded as ‘Abadi Deh’, the Collector directed the petitioner to file proceedings under Section 11 of the Act to establish ownership within three months, failing which it would be deemed that he had no right. The Commissioner upheld this view.
Before the High Court, the petitioners contended that once the Panchayat invoked Section 7 alleging the land to be ‘Shamlat Deh’, the onus to prove such vesting lay on the Panchayat. The revenue record indicated ‘Abadi Deh’ and the Panchayat failed to establish ownership.
The Court examined Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (pari materia with Section 104 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), and relied upon the Supreme Court decisions in Rangammal v. Kuppuswami (2011) 12 SCC 220, Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC 269, and Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma (2023) 19 SCC 782. It reiterated that the burden of proof rests upon the party asserting a right, and weakness in the opposite party’s case cannot substitute proof.
The Court held that the Panchayat, having initiated eviction proceedings under Section 7, was required to establish that the land was ‘Shamlat Deh’ vested in it. The Collector misdirected himself in shifting the burden to the occupant by directing him to invoke Section 11. The Commissioner compounded the error by failing to correct this legal infirmity.
Decision: The writ petition was allowed. Orders dated 15.09.2004 and 13.09.2007 were set aside. The Gram Panchayat was granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for removal of alleged encroachments after establishing its title in accordance with law.