The Division Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging eviction orders against an individual granted land on lease. The court held that post-expiry non-payment of rent constituted illegal possession, barring claims under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act.
Writ petition dismissed; impugned orders of Collector and Commissioner upheld.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.5865 of 1992
Date of decision : 18.10.2011
Dalip Ram
… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and others
…Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr.M.L.Saggar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.G.P.Vashisht, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.Manohar Lall, Addl.AG., Punjab Mr.P.S.Khurana, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.1.1988 (Annexure P-3) passed by DDPO-cum-Collector, whereby the application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act” ) as applicable to the State of Punjab filed by the Gram Panchayat of village Mannewala had been allowed; as well as the order dated 28.8.1991 (Annexure P-2) passed by Commissioner, whereby appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
Present writ petition was earlier decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders and remitted the case to this Court for afresh disposal having regard to the amendment of Section 2(g)(ii-a) of the Act.
2
CWP No.5865 of 1992
The relevant part of the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court,
reads as under :-
“We do not wish to express one way or the other on the merits of the respective contentions. All that is required to be done is to set aside the impugned orders so that the writ petition may be disposed of afresh having regard to the amendment of Section 2(g) (ii-a) of the Act. Whether this amendment covers the case of the appellant or not, is a matter to be examined by the High Court on the light of the contentions raised. In this view, the appeals are allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in view of what is stated above. We hope the High Court shall dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible looking to long pendency of the case.
Hence, this writ petition is for disposal before us.
Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case, are that the petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that petitioner is in possession of the land in question since 1961. The land in question was allotted to the petitioner being landless Harijan by the Government in the year 1961. Earlier his father Uttam Ram was in possession of the disputed land. The land in question is recorded as Banjar Qadim in the revenue record. The impugned orders arise from the application filed by the Gram Panchayat, Village Mannewal under Section 7 of the Act. Whereby the petitioner is held to be in unauthorized possession of the disputed land and the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land in question. So, the eviction orders dated 19.1.1988 (Annexure P-3) passed by Collector and order dated 28.8.1991 (Annexure P-2) passed by Commissioner, are being assailed by the petitioner.
3
CWP No.5865 of 1992
It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned orders are illegal without jurisdiction, arbitrary, mala fide, against the principle of nature justice, equity so are liable to be set aside.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Collector has no jurisdiction to decide the application for ejectment filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Act . Further, the petitioner cannot raise the question of title at this stage, as he had never raised this question of title before the Collector/Commissioner nor there is any evidence on record to prima facie show that any question of title is involved in the present writ petition. So, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner fails.
The petitioner is not owner of the land in dispute and is not entitled to retain the possession. He was a lessee and after the expiry of lease, he never paid any rent/chakota. The authorities have power to eject the petitioner under the provisions of the Act.
It is also case of the Gram Panchayat that policy decision referred by the petitioner under the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949 , is not at all relevant in the present case.
After perusal of the evidence on record, the Collector vide order dated 19.1.1988 (Annexure P-3) allowed the application of the Gram Panchayat and recorded a finding that lease was granted to the petitioner. After the expiry of lease period, petitioner has neither handed over the possession of the land in question to the Gram Panchayat nor paid any lease money. As such, the petitioner is in illegal possession of the land. In the Jamabandi, the Gram Panchayat is shown to be the owner and in the Khasra Girdawari, the possession of the petitioner has been shown to be illegal. The petitioner never paid any Chakota (rent) to the Gram Panchayat. It is also the admitted case that
4
CWP No.5865 of 1992
petitioner came into possession as a lessee. Even in the Jamabandi for the year 1963-64 (Annexure P-15), the land has been described as Shamlat Deh and possession of the petitioner has been shown as lessee. Similar is the position in the Jamabandi for the year 1994-95. Even in the Khasra-girdawari (Annexure P-18), Uttam Ram, father of the petitioner is stated to be in possession as Gair Marusi Lessee w.e.f. Kharif 1961 to Rabi 1971.
Admittedly, the father of the petitioner was lessee of the Gram Panchayat and thereafter the petitioner stepped into his shoes. They had not paid any rent to the Gram Panchayat after expiry of the lease period. So, they are in illegal possession.
The petitioner cannot deny the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. Once he has accepted that he has taken the land in question on lease, therefore, a lessee cannot challenge the ownership rights of the person from whom he has taken the land on lease. Earlier, it was the Patti land and now is described in the ownership column as of Gram Panchayat. So, the case of the petitioner does not fall within the exception clause i.e. 2(g)(iii) and 2(g) (viii).
We are of the considered view that the authorities below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that once the petitioner has accepted the Gram Panchayat as owner and had been into possession as lessee, after the expiry of lease, his possession is illegal. Petitioner cannot challenge the ownership of the Gram Panchayat, once he is lessee. Otherwise also, the case of the petitioner does not fall within the exception clause 2(g) (iii) and 2(g) (viii) of the Act .
In view of the above circumstances, the present writ petition is devoid of merit and hence, stands dismissed.
5
CWP No.5865 of 1992
( PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
) JUDGE
18.10.2011 sd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner is liable for illegal possession of land after lease expiry.
Whether petitioner prevails under exception clauses 2(g)(iii) and 2(g)(viii) of the Act.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dalip Ram
State of Punjab
Gram Panchayat of village Mannewala
PARAMJEET SINGH
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
