Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 418 (PNJ)

Ved Parkash v. Commissioner, Ambala Division

2003-03-12

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2003
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders dated 25.9.1985, 14.1.1986 and 8.4.1986, Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-5, passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Jagadhri, the Collector, Ambala and the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, respectively, vide which the petitioner has been ordered to be ejected from the land in dispute on the application filed by respondent No. 4 under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.1.1985, respondent No. 4-Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Act for ejectment of the petitioner from the land in question by alleging that it had leased out the land in question to the petitioner on 22.5.1983 for a period of one year. The said lease period expired on 22.5.1984, but after the expiry of the lease period, the petitioner did not hand over the vacant possession of the land in question. It as alleged that after the expiry of the lease period, the petitioner was in unauthorised possession of the land in question which vests in the Gram Panchayat, therefore, he is liable to be ejected. In response to the notice issued the petitioner filed reply to the said application and admitted that the land in question was leased out to him by the Gram Panchayat on 22.5.1983 on yearly basis. But he alleged that no time limit was fixed. It was also pleaded that the petitioner being a tenant on the land in question could be ejected only under the procedure provided in the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. 3. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, after considering the evidence led by the both the parties, held that the land in question was leased out by the respondent-Gram Panchayat to the petitioner for a period of one year. It was also found that after expiry of the aforesaid period of one year, the petitioner did not hand over the vacant possession of the land in question to the Gram Panchayat, therefore, his possession after the expiry of the lease period was unauthorised and illegal. The aforesaid finding was recorded on the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the respondent-Gram Panchayat. The aforesaid finding was recorded on the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the respondent-Gram Panchayat. Even the witness, produced by the petitioner, namely RW.l Jai Pal, has also admitted that the petitioner was inducted as a lessee on the land in question for a period of one year by the Gram Panchayat. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the petitioner was ordered to be ejected from the land in question. The aforesaid order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade was affirmed in appeal by the Collector, Ambala as well as in revision by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala. 4. In the instant writ petition, while challenging the aforesaid orders the petitioner has submitted that the respondent-Gram Panchayat is not the owner of the land in question. According to him, the land in dispute is owned by Zumla Malkans and no mutation regarding this land was sanctioned in the name of the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, a question of title was existing before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, therefore, as soon as the question of title was raised before him, it was incumbent upon the Assistant Collector 1st Grade to decide the same and then to proceed with the case. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid impugned orders, passed by respondents No. 1 to 3, are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In my opinion, there is no merit in the present petition. The petitioner has not disputed that he took the land in question on lease from respondent-Gram Panchayat. He was only disputing that the aforesaid lease was not for one year, rather it was an yearly lease and there was no limitation of lease period. Before the authorities below, the petitioner never denied the title of the Gram Panchayat nor he could have. Once he admitted that he had taken the land in question on lease from the Gram Panchayat, he has no right to deny the ownership of his lessor. Before the authorities below, the petitioner never denied the title of the Gram Panchayat nor he could have. Once he admitted that he had taken the land in question on lease from the Gram Panchayat, he has no right to deny the ownership of his lessor. The authorities below, after considering the evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that the land in question was leased out by the respondent-Gram Panchayat to the petitioner for a period of one year and after expiry of the said period, the petitioner did not hand over possession of the same to the Gram Panchayat, therefore, his possession after the expiry of lease period should be deemed to be unauthorised and illegal. Rule 19 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which defines the unauthorised occupation of the Shamlat Deh, reads as under: "19. Unauthorised occupation of Shamlat Deh:- For purposes of Section 7 of the Act, a person shall be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation of any land in Shamlat Deh. (a) Where he has, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, entered into possession thereof otherwise than under and in pursuance of any allotment, lease or grant by the Panchayat; or (b) Where he being an allottee, lessee or grantee has, by reason of the determination or cancellation of his allotment, lease or grant in accordance with the terms of that behalf, therein contained, ceased whether before or after the commencement of the Act, to be entitled to occupy or hold such land in Shamlat Deh; or (c) Where; any person authorised to occupy any land in Shamlat Deh has, whether before or after the commencement of the Act. (i) sub-let in contravention of the terms of allotment, lease or grant, without the permission of the Panchayat or of any other authority competent to permit such let-letting the whole or any part of such land in Shamlat Deh; or (ii) otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms express or implied; under which he is authorised to occupy such land in Shamlat Deh. Explanation - For the purposes of Clause (a) a person shall not merely by reason of the fact that he has paid any rent be deemed to have entered into possession as allottee, lessee or grantee." 6. Explanation - For the purposes of Clause (a) a person shall not merely by reason of the fact that he has paid any rent be deemed to have entered into possession as allottee, lessee or grantee." 6. The vires of the aforesaid Rule was challenged before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court in Jaimal and Ors. v. The Commissioner, Ambala Division and Ors.1 1969 Punjab Law Journal 378 has upheld the vires of the aforesaid Rule and it was held that after the expiry of the lease period, the lessee of the Gram Panchayat will be deemed to be an unauthorised occupant as the tenancy of a fixed term stands automatically determined by efflux of time and no action on the part of the landlord by way of notice to quit or the like is necessary. It becomes the duty of the tenant to hand over the possession of the demised premises immediately. Recently, a Full Bench of this Court in Roshan @ Roshan Lal and Ors. v. Secretary, Govt. of Haryana, Dev. and Panchayat Dept. and Ors.2 1999 Recent Revenue Reports 228, has held that upon the expiry of period of lease given by the Gram Panchayat, the lessee becomes an unauthorised occupant of the land and such an unauthorised occupant can be ordered to be ejected under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act read with Rule 19 of the Rules. 7. Regarding availability of protection to such lessee under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, a Division Bench of this Court in Fatia v. Sh. B.R. Anand, I.A.S. Collector,3 1999 Recent Revenue Reports 32, has held that after the expiry of the term of lease given by the Gram Panchayat, the proceedings for ejectment of the lessee can be initiated under Section 7(2) of the Act and the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. Thus, I find no illegality in the findings recorded by the authorities below to the effect that after the expiry of the lease period, the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant and is liable to be ejected under Section 7(2) of the Act; and he is not entitled for any protection under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. 8. 8. The contention of the petitioner that the Gram Panchayat is not owner is mis-conceived and such plea is not available to the petitioner. The petitioner, admittedly being a lessee, has no right to deny the title of the Gram Panchayat. In , it has been held that the petitioner having taken the land on lease from theGram Panchayat is estopped from challenging the title in respect of the land in question. Even otherwise the petitioner has raised this plea in this petition for the first time. No such plea was raised by him before the authorities below. Now he can not be allowed to raise such plea at this stage. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed with costs, which are assessed at Rs. 5,000/-.