A writ petition challenging eviction from alleged 'Shamlat' land was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner failed to prove title prima facie on documents as required by the Village Common Lands Act before raising the issue, thus being barred from doing so in this Court.
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.W.P No.10456 of 2008
1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.
C.W.P No.10456 of 2008
Date of Decision: 10.11.2008
Phool Singh
....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents.
Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present: Mr. M.P.S Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.
J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral).
Respondent No.4 moved an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as the Village Common Lands Act), seeking the eviction of the petitioner Phool Singh from the defined and specified land which was described as a part of “Shamlat Chowk”. During the course of hearing of the present writ petition, it is the sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue of title should have been settled by the revenue authorities before ordering the petitioner’s eviction. In this behalf, learned counsel for the petitioner invited this Court’s attention to the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner herein, namely, Phool Singh, before the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Jhajjar (which is available on the record of this case as Annexure P- 8)) wherein it is the express stance of the petitioner before the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Jhajjar, that the land in question is not “Shamlat
C.W.P No.10456 of 2008
2
Chowk” but the land in question is the ancestral property of the petitioner Phool Singh, and further that, he had constructed a house there and has been tethering his cattle and is using the same for household purpose. A perusal of the averments in the written statement also reveals, that it was specifically denied by the petitioner (Phool Singh) that the land in question is in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat, Dighal.
It is the aforesaid solitary submission that has fallen for our consideration while adjudicating upon the present controversy. The issue can be determined on the basis of Section 7 of the Village Common Lands Act, under which ejectment of the petitioner was sought by respondent No.4. Section 7(1) of the Village Common Lands Act, which alone is relevant, is accordingly, being extracted hereunder: --
“7. Power to Put Panchayat in possession of certain lands:-(1). An Assistant Collector of the first grade having jurisdiction in the village may, either suo moto or on an application made to him by a Panchayat or an inhabitant of the village or the Block Development and Panchayat Officer or Social Education and Panchayat Officer, or any other Officer authorised by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, after making such summary enquiry as he may deem fit and in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed, eject any person who is in wrongful or unauthorised 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 the Panchayat under this Act and put the panchayat in possession thereof and for so doing the Assistant Collector of the first grade may exercise the
C.W.P No.10456 of 2008
3
powers of a revenue court in relation to the execution of a decree for possession of land under the Punjab Tenancy Act,1887.
Provided that if in any such proceedings the question of title is raised and proved prima-facie on the basis of documents that the question of title is really involved, the Assistant Collector of the first grade shall record a finding to that effect and first decide the question of title in the manner laid down hereinafter.”
A perusal of the proviso to Section 7(1), extracted hereinabove, reveals that if during the course of proceedings under Section 7 of the Village Common Lands Act, a question of title is raised by the person against whom ejectment proceedings have been initiated, such a person would be required to “…prove prima-facie on the basis of documents that the question of title is really involved…” In order to determine whether the aforesaid prerequisite to raise the question of title had been complied with by the petitioner Phool Singh, during the course of proceedings before the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Jhajjar, we asked for the response of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
In response to our query, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly asserted, that no document was placed on the record of the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Jhajjar, to support the claim of the petitioner on the issue of title. It is acknowledged that only an objection (in this behalf) was raised in the written statement, as has been noticed by us during the course of taking into consideration the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
C.W.P No.10456 of 2008
4
In view of the above, we are of the view that the mandatory requirement to raise the issue of title as is provided for in the proviso to Section 7(1) of the Village Common Lands Act, was not complied with by the petitioner at the relevant juncture. It is, therefore, not possible for us to allow the petitioner to raise the instant plea before us.
In any case, the petitioner has placed on the record of this case the inspection report of the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Jhajjar, dated 6.4.2004, which reveals that the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Jhajjar, himself inspected the spot in the presence of the rival parties, as well as, a large number of villagers and recorded his conclusions to the effect that Phool Singh had constructed a room on the “shamlat chowk (rasta sare aam)”, and has thereby created encroachment on Shamlat land.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are satisfied that the petitioner has no cause, whatsoever, at the present juncture to raise the issue of title. The same is clearly barred in view of the proviso to Section 7(1) of the Village Common Lands Act. Even otherwise, the report of the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Jhajjar, who had visited the spot, is clear and unambiguous.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
( Nirmaljit Kaur ) Judge.
10.11.2008 sk.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner complied with the proviso to Section 7(1) of the Village Common Lands Act by proving prima facie title on document before raising the issue in ejectment proceedings.
Whether the petitioner is barred from raising the question of title after failing to prove it prima facie during the summary enquiry before the Assistant Collector.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Phool Singh
State of Haryana
Justices Khehar
Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
