Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1054 (PNJ)

Inder Singh v. Gram Panchayat

2004-09-15

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. lnder Singh son of Saun Singh, resident of village Bharon, Tehsil and District Sangrur, the petitioner-herein has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 30.3.1983 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No. 3 and for restoration of the order dated 16.3.1981 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No. 2, with a further prayer for staying dispossession of the petitioner from khasra Nos. 31//6(8-0) and 31//10(8-0), situate in village Bharon, Tehsil and District Sangrur. 2. On 18.8.1980 the Gram Panchayat Village Bharon/respondent No. l through its Sarpanch filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1961 (in short to be referred to as the Act) for ejectment, of the petitioner from Khasra No. 31//6(8-0)and 32//10(8-0) on the basis of jamabandi for the year . 1974-75. The petitioner contested the said application mainly on the ground that the Gram Panchayat is not owner of the land in dispute, which rather belongs to Jumla Mushtarka Malkan and it does not vest in Shamlat-deh; that the mutation also does not exist in the revenue records. The District Development and Panchayat Officer, Sangrur (exercising the powers of Collector) dismissed the application of the Panchayat vide order dated 16.3.1981 (Annexure P-6). An appeal was filed by the Gram Panchayat before the Joint Director Panchayats, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner). The same was allowed vide order dated 30.3.1983 (Annexure P-7). Hence this petition. 3. While issuing notice of motion in November 1983, dispossession was stayed. The writ petition was subsequently admitted on 1.3.1984 with the observation that the stay would continue. 4. Pursuant to the notice, return has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 whereas no return has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3. Ms. Sonia Virk, learned State Counsel makes a statement at the Bar that she does not intend to file any separate return on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 and adopts the one already filed by respondent No. 1. 5. I have heard Mr. Jitender Singla Advocate assisted by Mr. Amarjit Verka Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Sonia Virk, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab with their assistance, I have gone through the record available on the file. However, no one has appeared for respondent No. 1. 6. 5. I have heard Mr. Jitender Singla Advocate assisted by Mr. Amarjit Verka Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Sonia Virk, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab with their assistance, I have gone through the record available on the file. However, no one has appeared for respondent No. 1. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that since respondent No. 1 is not owner of the land, the application under Section 7 of the Act for eviction was not at all maintainable; that in fact Jumla Mushtarkla Malkan are owners of the said land and the petitioner being proprietor has been continuing in possession thereof even before 1963; that the Appellate Authority vide the impugned order Annexure P7 has allowed the appeal without upsetting the finding contained in the order Annexure P6 and has not discussed the evidence available on the record. According to the learned counsel, Jamabandi for the year 1974-75 was rightly rejected by the Collector whereas the Appellate Authority has wrongly relied upon the said Jamabandi inspite of the fact that it was proved on record by producing copy of the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings (Appeal), Sangrur dated 18.8.1962 (now produced as Annexure P4), wherein it was clearly mentioned that Khasra No. 31//(8-0) and 32//10(8-0) was allotted to Jumla Mushtarka Malkan alongwith the other land. The learned counsel then contends that had the Appellate Authority taken into account Annexure P4, which was discussed by the Collector, the Jamabandi on which the Appellate Authority has based its observation, would have fallen to the ground. He further contends that no doubt, under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, presumption of truth is attached to the Jamabandi for the year 1974-75 (Annexure P2), but the same is rebuttable and the petitioner had rebutted the same by producing Annexure P-4 copy of the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings (Appeals). He then contends that the land of Jumla Mushtarka Malkan does not fall within the definition of Shamlat-deh and as such application of respondent No. l for eviction of the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the Collector. Relying upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Chajju Ram v. The Joint Director, Panchayats and Ors., 1 (1986-1)89 P.L.R. 586, the learned counsel contends that the order Annexure P7 passed by the Appellate Authority is liable to be quashed. 7. Relying upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Chajju Ram v. The Joint Director, Panchayats and Ors., 1 (1986-1)89 P.L.R. 586, the learned counsel contends that the order Annexure P7 passed by the Appellate Authority is liable to be quashed. 7. The learned State counsel while setting the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 submits that the Gram Panchayat/respondent No. 1 was owner of the land in dispute since 1963-64 and the petitioner is shown as cultivating the said land under the Panchayat, showing the rate of Chakota as Rs. 600/- per year and as such the petitioner came into possession thereof in the year 1963-64 that the same entries continued in the Jamabandi for the year 1974-75, showing the petitioner to be in cultivating possession and the amount of Chakota is also mentioned therein, that right from 1963-64 the Panchayat has been entered as owner and there is no entry of ownership of Mushtarka Malkan and as such the order dated 18.8.1962 (Annexure P4) passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings (Appeals) cannot rebut the consistent Jamabandi entries and it cannot be said that the Gram Panchayat is not owner of the land in dispute and hence the present writ petition merits dismissal. 8. After giving any thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions made by either side, I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the application under Section 7 of the Act (Annexure P1) moved by the respondent-Gram Panchayat reflects that the eviction of the petitioner was sought mainly on the ground that the Panchayat is in possession of the land in dispute on the basis of the jamabandi for the year 1974-75, in which the Panchayat is shown as owner whereas the petitioner is shown as a cultivator. In the rent column, Chakota at the rate of Rs. 600/- per annum is indicated. The detailed reply filed by Inder Singh petitioner-herein to the said application indicates that the Gram Panchayat is not at all owner of the suit land. Rather at the time of consolidation, it was Bachat land, which remained after consolidation and is owned by Jumla Mushtarka Malkan. 600/- per annum is indicated. The detailed reply filed by Inder Singh petitioner-herein to the said application indicates that the Gram Panchayat is not at all owner of the suit land. Rather at the time of consolidation, it was Bachat land, which remained after consolidation and is owned by Jumla Mushtarka Malkan. It was further averred in the reply that the petitioner is land owner in the village and is continuing to be owner in possession of the land in dispute and was enjoying its fruit and in fact, he never paid any batai or chakota to the Gram Panchayat; that even if any entry in the revenue record regarding giving the land to the petitioner is shown, that will absolutely have no effect upon his rights; that the said land cannot vest in the Gram Panchayat under any law; that initially there was a tibba in the land in dispute, which was uncultivable and during consolidation, the land was valued at a rate of just 1-2 Annas whereas the petitioner had improved its value by his hard labour etc. and after the value of the land had increased, the Gram Panchayat on account of wrong entries in the revenue record, sought his eviction. Before the Collector, the petitioner relied upon the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation and Holdings (Appeals), Sangrur (Annexure P-4) in which the disputed land is shown in the name of owners and thereafter it was allotted to Mushtarka Malkan. Although the petitioner has not annexed copy of the mutation sanctioned on 29.12.1962, yet there is a reference to this effect in the order of the Collector (Annexure P-6), wherein it was specifically mentioned that the land in dispute was mutated in favour of Mushtarka Malkan Hasb Rasb Khewat. The Collector on the basis of the aforesaid documents came to the conclusion that the land of Jumla Mushtarka Malkan does not fall within the definition of Shamlat-deh. It is further observed by the Collector that no doubt the presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the jamabandi, yet it is rebuttable. The petitioner in support of his claim had also relied upon an agreement dated 17.8.1980 (Ex.R1), which indicated that the village community had received Rs. 8,000/-from the petitioner for construction of drain etc. and the possession of the land was handed over to the petitioner till the amount was paid back to him. The petitioner in support of his claim had also relied upon an agreement dated 17.8.1980 (Ex.R1), which indicated that the village community had received Rs. 8,000/-from the petitioner for construction of drain etc. and the possession of the land was handed over to the petitioner till the amount was paid back to him. On the basis of sufficient evidence produced by the petitioner, the Collector arrived at the conclusion that the land in dispute is the property of Jumla Mushtarka Malkan and even if the land had been entered in the name of Panchayat in the Jamabandi, it would not confer any title in the name of the Gram Panchayat. I deem it proper to mention here that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Annexure P-7) reflects that the appeal of the Grain Panchayat was allowed primarily on the ground that according to the Jamabandi for the year 1974-75, the land vests in the Gram Panchayat. The Commissioner has not entered into any other reasoning, discussing merits of the case on the basis of the evidence produced before the Collector. 9. From the material on record, it is amply clear that no land was reserved for common purposes of the village. The land in dispute is being used for agricultural purpose by the proprietors of the village and not for any common purpose of the village. The judgment in Chajju Rams case (supra) upon which the learned counsel for the petitioner very heavily relies, squarely covers the case of the petitioner. It was observed therein by this Court that the land kept apart as Mushtarka Malkan and as per revenue record it vested in the proprietory body and used for the agricultural purposes by the proprietors of the village and not for any common purpose of the village, it would not come within the ambit of Shamlat-deh in Section 2(g) Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, because it is not being used for any common purposes and Rule 16(ii) of Consolidation Rules and Sections 18 and 23-A of Consolidation Act would not be applicable. The Gram Panchayat would have no locus standi to initiate eviction proceedings. The eviction order was quashed. With regard to the facts of the instant case and following the ratio of the decision in Chajju Rams case (supra), I am of the considered view that the writ petition deserves to be accepted. The Gram Panchayat would have no locus standi to initiate eviction proceedings. The eviction order was quashed. With regard to the facts of the instant case and following the ratio of the decision in Chajju Rams case (supra), I am of the considered view that the writ petition deserves to be accepted. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 30.3.1983 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Joint Director Panchayats, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner) is hereby quashed and the order dated 16.3.1981 (Annexure P6) passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer (exercising the powers of Collector) is hereby restored. However there shall be no order as to costs.