Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1421 (PNJ)

Daler Singh v. Nafe Singh

2001-12-21

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2001
Judgment Bakhshish Kaur, J. 1. This is a petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The facts giving rise to this petition, briefly stated, are that in the year 1955-56 when the State Government was making serious efforts to boost up the agricultural production, the then Chief Minister of Punjab, Sardar Partap Singh Kairon, gave out that the persons of the families who were prepared to put in hard work and bring the waste and the jungle land under cultivation, could be allotted such land in District Karnal of which village Arnauli formed part at that time. There was about 8223 Bighas, 1 Biswa of land. In the revenue record, it was described as Shamlat Deh, Hasab Rasad Zari Khewat. The petitioner and others were put in possession of this land as tenants. 2. An application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short to be referred as "the Act") was filed against the petitioner as well as 75 lessees on the ground that the occupants were in unauthorised possession since 1971. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kaithal passed an order of ejectment against the petitioner and other lessees on January 13, 1977. They preferred appeal against the order of ejectment. The case was remanded and ultimately, the ejectment order was passed which was challenged by way of filing a civil writ petition. 3. As many as 76 civil writ petitions No. 1479, 1558 to 1625, 1680 to 1685 and 2853 of 1979 emanating from the proceedings initiated by Gram Panchayat, Arnauli, Tehsil Guhla, District Kurukshetra under Section 7 of the Act were allowed on September 6, 1979 by a Division bench of this Court. Copy of the judgment is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the grandson of Dial Singh who was one of the writ petitioners before this Court. He died in 1982. After his death he succeeded as lessee. He has paid lease money upto 1999- 2000. Abruptly, the Gram Panchayat stopped to receive the lease money. Therefore, the petitioner sent a sum of Rs. 75/- being lease money for the year 2000-2001, but it was returned with the remarks "Refusal". He died in 1982. After his death he succeeded as lessee. He has paid lease money upto 1999- 2000. Abruptly, the Gram Panchayat stopped to receive the lease money. Therefore, the petitioner sent a sum of Rs. 75/- being lease money for the year 2000-2001, but it was returned with the remarks "Refusal". The respondents in utter violation of the judgment of this Court, Annexure P-1, have again filed application for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that he is in unauthorised occupation of the land. There is no averment in the petition that the tenancy in favour of the petitioner was ever terminated. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to continue in possession of the land until and unless the tenancy is terminated in accordance with law. On the basis of this application, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade has issued notice to the petitioner to appear in his Court. Thus the action of the respondent by making averment that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the land amounts to wilful violation of the judgment of this Court. 5. Both the respondents have filed their respective replies in the form of affidavit and both have taken somewhat common pleas that the land in question is shamlat land and is regulated by Punjab village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. The petitioner is in illegal and unauthorised possession of the land as he is not paying lease money to the Gram Panchayat since 1999 onwards. The application for dispossession under Section 7(1)(2) of the Act, Annexure P-4, has been filed before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Gulah, District Kaithal on the basis of record shown by Gram Panchayat and also in public interest but the petitioner is defaulter in paying the lease money, therefore, he cannot be treated as lessee. This apart, the concluding para of the judgment (Annexure P-1) does not preclude the Gram Panchayat from initiating any fresh proceedings for ejectment of the petitioner in accordance with law. Therefore, the initiation of the proceedings does not amount to violation of the judgment passed by this Court as the application, Annexure P-4, is an independent action. 6. I have heard Mr. Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The facts of the case are not much in dispute. The large area of the land was lying barren. 6. I have heard Mr. Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The facts of the case are not much in dispute. The large area of the land was lying barren. Thus to bring this land under cultivation and to boost up the agricultural production as a part of the "Grow More Food Campaign" at the national level, the then Chief Minister of Punjab, S. Partap Singh Kairon gave out that the persons or the families who were prepared to put in hard work and bring waste and jungle land under cultivation, could be allotted such land in District Karnal of which District Village Arnauli formed a part at that time. As many as 76 families were put in possession of this land as tenants under the Gram Panchayat who brought the land under cultivation. 8. In the year 1976, the Gram Panchayat initiated ejectment proceedings against the tenants under Section 7(1)(2) of the Act on the basis that they were in unauthorised possession. It was concluded that there was no evidence before the Assistant Collector or the Collector as to when did the tenancy of the petitioner terminates - if at all it was terminated. To be more specific, it would be appropriate if the concluding paras of the judgment, Annexure P-1, are re-produced. the same read as under : "The ratio of this decision applies with full force to the facts of the present case. There was no evidence before the Assistant Collector or the Collector as to when did the tenancy of the petitioner terminates - if at all it terminated. The petitioner being a tenant under the Panchayat, is entitled to retain the possession of the land in question till the Panchayat can by any positive evidence prove that he has ceased to be a tenant under it and thus has become an unauthorised or unlawful occupier of the shamlat land. In the case of the discussion above, we are clearly of the view that both the orders, Annexures P.2 and P.3 passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector, respectively are unsustainable and we set aside these. This, however, does not preclude the Gram Panchayat from initiating any fresh proceedings for the ejectment of the petitioners in accordance with law. 9. This, however, does not preclude the Gram Panchayat from initiating any fresh proceedings for the ejectment of the petitioners in accordance with law. 9. The respondent is deriving the benefit of the concession given to it that the Gram Panchayat, will not be precluded from initiating fresh proceedings for the ejectment of the petitioner in accordance with law. The case of the petitioner, on the contrary, is that the position still remains the same because there is no evidence or material on record to show that the tenancy of the petitioner was ever terminated. If the petitioner has been put in possession of the land in dispute on the same terms and conditions as his father or grand-father was put in possession, then his possession cannot be termed as unauthorised and in this regard, reference is made to copies of Jama Bandi, Annexures P-2 and P-3, particularly to Column Nos. 4 and 5 relating to ownership and the cultivator. It is entered as under : 1. ---------- 2. ---------- 3. ---------- 4. Name of the owner with Panchayat Deh 142163/150124 detail. shares evacuee property 7961/150124 shares resident of village. 5. Name of cultivator in detail. Daler Singh son Sohan Singh son of Dial Singh, Gair Marusi resident of the village. 10 The rate of rent and amount the tenant pays as Chakota as mentioned in Column No. 9, Annexure P-2, is Rs. 25/- per annum. 11. Now adverting to Annexure P-4, which is an application submitted by the Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Gulah addressed to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gulah, it is mentioned therein that Gram Panchayat Arnauli is the owner of the land Khewat No. 438, Khatauni No. 616, Khasra Nos. 104//23, 24, 25 measuring 24 Kanals 10 Marlas. This is an application seeking dispossession suo moto under Section 7(1)(2) of the Act. The relevant paras of this application are 2 and 3, which read as under : "That Sh. Daler Singh son of Sohan Singh son of Dial Singh resident of Arnoli, The. Gulah, Distt. kaithal is in illegal occupation of the land the details of which are given in para No. 1 above under the Punjab Village Common Lands Rules, 1964, clause 19. Copy of Khasra Girdari is attached. That the land in dispute may be got vacated from Sh. Gulah, Distt. kaithal is in illegal occupation of the land the details of which are given in para No. 1 above under the Punjab Village Common Lands Rules, 1964, clause 19. Copy of Khasra Girdari is attached. That the land in dispute may be got vacated from Sh. Daler Singh and others in the proceeds suo moto under Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and Haryana Amended Act, 1974 clause 7(1). The possession may be got delivered under Section 10 along with standing crop. 12. The prayer made in the application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade is that Daler Singh and others are in illegal possession. Accordingly, Rs. 21,000/- per hectare per year may be paid to the Panchayat. A careful reading of the application, Annexure P-4, would clearly show that the action for ejectment of the petitioner has been taken suo moto. It is nowhere mentioned that the petitioner is in arrears of rent or that he has made default in making the payment of rent or Chakota. In fact, what is conveyed therein is that he is in illegal possession, therefore, Rs. 10,000/- per hectare per year may be got paid. 13. The malafide intention on the part of the respondents is, therefore, clear if one looks into the entry recorded in the Jama bandi. The rate of rent was Rs. 25/- at which rate it was given on rent of this grand father. The petitioner had also remitted the amount of Rs. 75/-, but the authorities concerned had refused to accept the same. No reason has been disclosed as to why they had refused to receive if and whether it was less, or whether, it was not deposited within time. In the application, Annexure P-4, the rate of rent has not been mentioned. The Honble Judges of this Court in the Judgment, Annexure P-1, have also made reference to Tale and others v. Gram Panchayat of village Kotwal and others, 1974 P.L.J. 57 wherein the circumstances were somewhat similar and it was observed as under : a) a reading of sub-rule (b) or Rule 15 or the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, shows that possession of a tenant becomes unauthorised if the grant made in his favour is terminated in accordance with the conditions of the grant. Sub-rule (c) lays down that the possession of a tenant would become unauthorised if he sub-lets the land under his tenancy or It acts in contravention of any of the express or implied terms of the grant. The cumulative effect of these provisions is that a tenant cannot be thrown out of the land in his possession under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, at the mere whim and sweet will of the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat has to establish that the tenant contravened any of the terms of the grant. b) A Gram Panchayat by passing a mere resolution at any time cannot terminate a lawfully constitute tenancy. A tenant who cultivated the land leased out in his favour and grown a valuable crop, the Gram Panchayat cannot in a unilateral manner terminate the tenancy just before the time when the crop would be ripe for harvesting. c) Tenant of the Gram Panchayat who is not in arrears of rent cannot be said to be in unauthorised or wrongful possession of the land, consequently the authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act cannot exercise a jurisdiction under Section 7 to order ejectment. Where the Gram Panchayat created a yearly tenancy for an unlimited period,........... so long as the tenants continue to pay the rent, they cannot be ejected under section 7 of the Act." 14. In view of the above, the Gram Panchayat cannot in unilateral manner terminate the tenancy. Secondly, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is in arrears of rent and if so, for what period, and it is only then he could be said to be in unauthorised or wrongful possession of the land. Thus, as observed in Tale and others case (supra), the authorities under the Act cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Act towards the ejectment. Since this point was thoroughly discussed in the judgment, Annexure P-1, and the situation in the given case in hand remains the same i.e. the respondents have not been able to establish as to when the tenancy or the petitioner was terminated, or it at all it was terminated. Since this point was thoroughly discussed in the judgment, Annexure P-1, and the situation in the given case in hand remains the same i.e. the respondents have not been able to establish as to when the tenancy or the petitioner was terminated, or it at all it was terminated. Thus on the same grounds if the respondents initiate proceedings for the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that he has become an unauthorised and unlawful occupant of shamlat land, only then it would amount to violation of the order, Annexure P-1, it would, therefore, amount to interference with the judicial process. 15. In view of the aforesaid, Shri Nafe Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Guhla and Shri Ujagar Singh alias Beant Singh son of Amar Singh, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Arnauli, District Kaithal are held guilty for committing contempt of Court. The contemnors are punished to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for one month. 16. This order will become operational after the expiry of three months, during which period the respondent may avail appropriate legal remedy available to him and/or purge the contempt.