Dismissed

Gian Singh v. Joint Director and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jul 2013CWP/6854/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In four concurrent writ petitions, the High Court dismissed requests for ejectment relief. The Court held that revenue records established the Gram Panchayat as the landowner; therefore, no case was made out for interference with the lower authority's order dispossessing the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions filed by Gian Singh, Jagir Singh, Dalip Singh, and Balbir Singh were dismissed.

Gian Singh Vs Joint Director and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No.6854 of 1988

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.6854 of 1988 Gian Singh .....Petitioner Versus Joint Director-cum-Commissioner, Panchayats, Punjab, Chandigarh & another ......Respondents 2. CWP No.6845 of 1988 Jagir Singh & another .....Petitioners Versus Joint Director-cum-Commissioner, Panchayats, Punjab, Chandigarh & another ......Respondents 3. CWP No.7667 of 1988 Dalip Singh .....Petitioner Versus Joint Director-cum-Commissioner, Panchayats, Punjab, Chandigarh & another ......Respondents 4. CWP No.14668 of 1989 Balbir Singh .....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab & another ......Respondents Date of decision: 09.07.2013

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

¶6

CWP No.6854 of 1988

¶7

-2-

¶8

Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP No.6854 of 1988).

¶9

Mr.Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate, for the petitioners (in CWP No.6845 of 1988).

¶10

Mr.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP No.7667 of 1988).

¶11

Mr.I.K.Mehta, Sr.Advocte, with Mrs.Ranjit Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP No.14668 of 1989).

¶12

Mr.Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶13

Mr.V.Ramsarup, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

¶14

¶15

Jasbir Singh J.(Oral)

¶16

This order will dispose of CWP Nos.6845, 6854 & 7667 of 1988 and 14668 of 1989. To dictate orders, facts are being taken from CWP No.6854 of 1988.

¶17

It is the case of the petitioner that he being owner of the land in dispute, cannot be ordered to be ejected from it as has been done by respondent No.1 vide order dated 10.06.1988 (Annexure P-3).

¶18

As per facts on record, Gram Panchayat-respondent No.2 filed application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 for ejectment of the petitioner from the land in dispute description of which is given in the order under challenge. The Collector, vide order dated 04.02.1986 rejected application filed by the Gram Panchayat and opined that the land in dispute belongs to the proprietors and they are entitled to get it cultivated through the tenants and spend the income so realised upon development of the village. The Gram Panchayat went in appeal which was allowed by respondent

¶19

CWP No.6854 of 1988

¶20

-3-

¶21

No.1 on 10.06.1988. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:

¶22

“5. I have heard the parties & also gone through the record of this case. In the year 1961-62, 1966-67 according to the jamabandi Gram Panchayat is the owner of Suit land & Gram Panchayat is shown in possession of land. The respondent took the land in dispute on lease for the year of 1970-71 at the rate of Rs.700/- per Acre. And respondent executed a Patanama in favour of Gram Panchayat. On the basis of this auction, respondent was shown tenant in the record. Before this respondent was not in possession of the suit land. There is no dispute regarding the ownership of the suit land. According to the revenue record Gram Panchayat is the owner of Suit land & Gram Panchayat was auctioning the land. Appellant has not produced any evidence regarding the ownership of land.

¶23

According to revenue record the Gram Panchayat has auctioned the land on lease to the respondent. Respondent is in illegal possession of the suit land.

¶24

After considering all the facts I have come to the conclusion that order of the lower court is illegal & against the facts of the case. Therefore the order of the lower court dated 4.2.86 is set aside. And the present respondent is hereby ordered to be dispossessed from the suit land.”

¶25

It is specifically noticed by respondent No.1 that as per revenue record, the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat. To say so, reference was made to Misal Haqiat (Annexure P-1) in which in column No.4, the owner's name was shown as Nagar Panchayat. Mutation was entered in favour of the Gram Panchayat on 28.02.1959.

¶26

At the time of arguments, it is also noticed that the petitioner in this case was chakotedar and the land was taken on lease from the Gram Panchayat @ `7000/- for the year 1980-81. After accepting ownership of the Gram Panchayat, it is not open to the petitioner to deny title of the Gram Panchayat. At the time of arguments, Sh.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate vehemently contended that the land in dispute was never taken on lease by the petitioner and there is no such

¶27

-4-

¶28

CWP No.6854 of 1988

¶29

evidence on record. The argument raised is liable to be rejected. In the written statement filed by the Gram Panchayat-respondent No.2, it is specifically stated that the land was taken on lease by the petitioner in the year 1970-71. The petitioner again took the land in dispute on lease basis in the year 1980-81 @ `7000/-. To say so, reliance was placed upon extract from the lease resister (Annexure R-2) perusal of which indicates that the petitioner was the highest bidder and in token of his participation, at the end of the lease resister, he also put up his thumb mark. In all the jamabandies which have been placed on record, Gram Panchayat has been shown as owner of the land in dispute.

¶30

In view of the facts mentioned above, no case is made out for interference and consequently, all the writ petitions are dismissed.

¶31

(JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE

¶32

(G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

¶33

09.07.2013 sailesh

Gian Singh v. Joint Director and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gian Singh v. Joint Director and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harpal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mahinder Singh and Anr. Vs Collector Yamuna Nagar and Anr.

Umrao Singh and Ors. Vs the Collector and Anr.

Balbir Singh Vs Pb.State K.S.Sidhu

Jagir Singh & Anr. Vs Joint Director Cum Commr. Panchayat Pb.

Dalip Singh Vs Jt. Director Cum Commr.Panchayat Pb.Anr