Partly allowed

Rashpal Singh and Ors. v. Gram Panchayat

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jan 2017CWP/4947/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court ruled that petitioners in unauthorized possession of Gram Panchayat land and shops must pay revised rent as per Assessment Committee report. Court directed lease renewal every three years upon payment and held eviction proceedings decided without prejudice to title suit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to pay revised rent from 01.01.2017; lease renewable every three years subject to revised rent; eviction proceedings disposed without prejudice to title suit.

Rashpal Singh and Ors. Vs Gram Panchayat — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CM-6231-CWP-2015 in/and CWP-4947-2009 (O&M) - 1 -

¶2

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CM-6231-CWP-2015 in/and CWP-4947-2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 18, 2017

¶4

Rashpal Singh and others

¶5

.....Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Hoshiarpur, and others

¶8

......Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMIT RAM

¶10

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

¶11

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No.

¶12

3. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No

¶13

.......

¶14

Present: Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶15

Mr.J.S.Puri, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr.C.L.Premi, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶16

SURYA KANT, J.

¶17

CM-6231-CWP-2015

¶18

Application is allowed as prayed for. Main case is taken up on

¶19

Board today.

¶20

CM stands disposed of.

¶21

CWP-4947-2009

¶22

The petitioners have occupied the land which vests in the Gram

¶23

Panchayat and have constructed shops thereupon at their own expenses.

¶24

They were ordered to be evicted from the occupied land and their appeal etc.

¶25

Meenu 2017.01.25 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

¶26

CM-6231-CWP-2015 in/and CWP-4947-2009 (O&M) - 2 -

¶27

were dismissed. The aggrieved petitioners approached this Court. Ad interim stay has been granted to them on 12.01.2012. They also expressed their willingness to pay rent at the rate of Rs.100/- per month with an increase of 10% after every three years. Their offer was accepted by the Gram Panchayat.

¶28

[2] On the joint request made by learned counsel for the parties, we have heard them on merits and are of the view that the controversy in this case can be effectively disposed of in such terms as were imposed in CWP No.5303 of 2015 decided on 02.06.2016 ( Santokh Singh and others vs State of Punjab and others ). That was also a case where the land as well as shops of the Gram Panchayat were in an unauthorized possession of the writ-petitioners and their dispossession was stayed subject to payment of rent of Rs.100/- per month, per shop. This Court in the cited case directed the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur to get the rental value of the shops assessed whereupon the writ-petitioners were directed to seek renewal of the lease subject to payment of the revised rent as per the rate determined by the Assessment Committee.

¶29

[3] Since the above-cited order was passed in respect of the land/shops in the same village where the present petitioners have also constructed shops on the land which is claimed to be owned by Gram Panchayat, they too are liable to pay the monthly rent for the land as per the report of the Assessment Committee. We, thus, hold that the petitioners are liable to pay the revised rent for the land/shops at the same rate as has been

¶30

determined in Santokh Singh ’s case (supra).

¶31

Meenu 2017.01.25 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

¶32

CM-6231-CWP-2015 in/and CWP-4947-2009 (O&M) - 3 -

¶33

[4] Ordered accordingly.

¶34

[5] The petitioners shall be liable to pay the revised rent from 01.01.2017 subject to suitable revision of rent after every three years whereupon the Gram Panchayat may renew the lease period after three years.

¶35

[6] Since the instant writ petition has arisen out of eviction proceedings only, the same is disposed of without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to raise the title claim by way of an appropriate suit which they may file before the Collector. However, till the decision of such suit, they shall continue to pay the revised rent, as determined above.

¶36

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE

¶37

January 18, 2017 ( GURMIT RAM ) meenuss JUDGE 1. Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable ? Yes/No

¶38

Meenu 2017.01.25 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

Rashpal Singh and Ors. v. Gram Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashpal Singh and Ors. v. Gram Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pritpal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Karnail Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ram Niwas Yadav Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Railway Borad and Anr. Vs Sarabjit Singh and Ors.

M/S Gurkirpa Seeds Company and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

All India Sc/St Railway Employees Association and Ors. Vs All India Equality Forum Regd and Ors.