Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1409 (PNJ)

Malkhani v. Commissioner, Rohtak Division

2000-11-20

JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, K.S.GAREWAL

body2000
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - The fourth respondent initiated proceedings for the eviction of Paltu under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. He prayed that Paltu, who was in possession to the relevant time, be evicted. The Assistant Collector, after examining of the matter found that "land bearing Khasra No. 15/14/26 is in possession of the respondents since long and Panchayat has also accepted to sell this plot to respondents father vide its resolution No. 3 dated 15.6.1971 for a consideration of Rs. 300/- and he deposited this amount......... A house on this land was constructed by them since very long which is duly proved by the evidence on record." Thus, he came to the conclusion that the possession was not unauthorised. He also found that initially Paltu and thereafter his legal representatives were in possession of plot No. 15/14/27. This possession was held to be illegal. They were, thus, ordered to be dispossessed from Plot No. 15/14/27. 2. The legal representatives of Paltu as also the Gram Panchayat filed two separate appeals before the Collector. Both these appeals were dismissed vide order dated September 16, 1997. Thereafter, both sides filed revision petitions before the Commissioner. The findings recorded by the Assistant Collector Collector and were affirmed. 3. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the three authorities, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-4, the legal representatives of Paltu viz. Smt. Malkhani and others have filed C.W.P. No. 10170 of 1999. The Gram Panchayat has filed a separate petition viz. C.W.P. No. 15804 of 2000. 4. In CWP No. 10170 of 1999, it was directed that the notice of motion be issued. A reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 viz. The Gram Panchayat. No written statement has been filed by the other respondents. The second case has been posted for hearing only today. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Mukesh Kaushik, learned Counsel for Smt. Malkhani and others (legal representatives of Paltu) has submitted that they have constructed a house on the land in dispute. They have been living in this house for a long time. He further states that the petitioners are willing to pay the market value of Plot No. 15/14/27. Thus, their possession should be regularised. Mr. They have been living in this house for a long time. He further states that the petitioners are willing to pay the market value of Plot No. 15/14/27. Thus, their possession should be regularised. Mr. Sachin Mittal, learned Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, which is the petitioner in CWP No. 15804 of 2000, has submitted that the possession of Smt. Malkhani etc. (respondents No. 4 to 9 in the petition filed by the Gram Panchayat) even over plot No. 15/14/26 is unauthorised. Thus, they should be ordered to be evicted. 6. It is admitted by the counsel for the Gram Panchayat that Paltu and thereafter Smt. Malkhani etc. have been in possession of the land since the year 1971. It is also not disputed that the Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution in the year 1971 for the sale of the land bearing Khasra No. 15/14/26 in favour of Paltu. He had constructed a house on this plot and was living in it till November 27, 1994, when he had unfortunately passed away. Still further, it is not disputed that the Panchayat had initiated the proceedings along with respondent No. 4 (Sultan) in the year 1993. Thus, the Panchayat had remained quiet for almost 22 years. Despite these facts it is contended that the possession of Paltu etc. had continued to be illegal as the land had been sold without the prior approval of the Government as contemplated under Rule 12 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. He submits that since the approval had not been obtained, the sale was illegal and the possession had become unauthorised. 7. Admittedly, it was the duty of the petitioner Gram Panchayat to seek permission of the competent authority. It is also not disputed that Paltu etc. had paid the price demanded by the Panchayat. Did the Panchayat seek the permission ? If any, can it blame the purchasers ? There is nothing on record to show as to why the Panchayat had failed to perform its duty. The purchaser acted on the faith and the resolution passed by the Panchayat. He had paid the price therefor. That having happened the Panchayat would be estopped from challenging the validity of the possession of Paltu or his legal representatives. Thus, we find that the view taken by the Assistant Collector, the Collector and the Commissioner calls for no interference. The purchaser acted on the faith and the resolution passed by the Panchayat. He had paid the price therefor. That having happened the Panchayat would be estopped from challenging the validity of the possession of Paltu or his legal representatives. Thus, we find that the view taken by the Assistant Collector, the Collector and the Commissioner calls for no interference. In CWP No. 15804 of 2000, no other argument has been raised. Thus, this petition is dismissed. 8. So far as the petition filed by Smt. Malkhani etc. is concerned, the counsel has made a very fair offer. He submits that the petitioners are willing to pay the market value of the land measuring 9 Marlas viz. Khasra No. 15/14/27. Mr. Sachin Mittal, states that the price of the land is Rs. 500/- per sq. yd. Mr. Mukesh Kaushik, submits that he has got documents indicating the price fixed by the Director and that the rate quoted by Mr. Mittal, on instructions from his client, is not correct. In this situation, we consider it appropriate to direct that the Assistant Collector, Panipat viz. respondent No. 3 shall determine the market value after hearing both the parties. He would give two months time to the petitioners to make the deposit of the amount. If the deposit is made, necessary action for the transfer of the property in their name shall be taken. In case of failure to make the deposit within the aforesaid time of two months, the Gram Panchayat shall be entitled to take possession of the land. In case the petitioners are not satisfied with the rate that may be fixed by the Assistant Collector, they would be entitled to vacate the land and shall not be called upon to make the deposit. Learned counsel for the petitioners accepts this position. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector, Panipat on December 18, 2000. 9. As a result, we dispose of CWP No. 10170 of 1999 in the above terms. No costs. 10. A copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges. Petition disposed of.