Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 650 (PNJ)

Kuldip Singh v. Gram Panchayat

2005-05-26

J.S.NARANG, RAJIVE BHALLA

body2005
Judgment Rajive Bhalla, J. 1. The petitioners, by way of the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, pray for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 8.12.2003 (Annexure P-l), passed by the Collector/Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Patiala, and 18.3.2005 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Director, and 18.3.2005 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab (exercising powers of the Commissioner). 2. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the present writ petition are enumerated hereinafter. The proceedings initiated by the Gram Panchayat, under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , were impugned by the petitioners, by filing C.W.P. No. 247 of 2001. Tara Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 4.4.2002, with an observation that as the dispute was regarding title to the property, the petitioners may, if so advised, file an application under Section 11 of the Act, for declaration of their title. 3. On 19.4.2002, the petitioners filed an application, under Section 11 of the Act, alleging therein that prior to the sanction of mutation No. 1009, dated 5.8.1964, whereby ownership of the land was mutated in favour of the Gram Panchayat, the land was described as Mushtarka Khewat Hasab Rasad Azari Khewat and, therefore, was not the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. Upon notice, the Gram Panchayat put in appearance and pleaded that the petitioners had concealed material facts, namely, they had no share in the land in dispute, the land had not been carved out by applying a pro rata cut, the petitioners, not being right-holders, could not raise any grievance in respect of the mutation, and most significantly the petitioners were tenants of the Gram Panchayat, on payment of rent. The Gram Panchayat had been leasing out the property since 1961-62 to different individuals, including the petitioners and, therefore, no question of title arose. 4. The Collector, vide order dated 8.12.2003, dismissed the application. 5. The appeal, filed by the petitioners, was dismissed, vide order dated 18.3.2005, on the ground that the petitioners, being lesses, could not claim ownership of the land. 6. 4. The Collector, vide order dated 8.12.2003, dismissed the application. 5. The appeal, filed by the petitioners, was dismissed, vide order dated 18.3.2005, on the ground that the petitioners, being lesses, could not claim ownership of the land. 6. Counsel for the petitioners contends that even though the petitioners were lessees of the land in dispute, this fact did not absolve the Collector of his obligation of determining the question of title raised. This Court, while disposing of C.W.P. No. 247 of 2001, had held that a question of title had arisen and the petitioners could seek adjudication thereof, by filing an application, under Section 11 of the Act. Consequently, the Collector was obliged to decide the question of title. The findings of the Collector and that of the Director Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab (exercising powers of the Commissioner) that the petitioners, being lessees, could not raise a question of title, merit reversal. It is further contended that the land in dispute, prior to the mutation, sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat, did not answer to the description of sham-lat deh and, therefore, the mutation, being illegal, did not confer any title upon the Gram Panchayat. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the pleadings, as also the impugned orders. 8. Counsel for the petitioners has candidly conceded that the petitioners are lessees in possession under the Gram Panchayat. It is so pleaded in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, which reads thus:- "Although the above mentioned land, being not shamlat deh, never vested in the Gram Panchayat yet the Gram Panchayat started leasing it out. The petitioners did not know the legal position, and had taken the land in dispute on lease. The petitioners thereafter came to know that the land had not vested in the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, the provisions of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 hereinafter called the Act, did not apply. The Gram Panchayat filed application under Section 7 of the Act." 9. The Collector, while deciding the present controversy, and on the basis of evidence, produced by the Gram Panchayat, in the shape of Jamabandis, the list of lessees and copy of the lease register, arrived at a conclusion that the land in dispute was leased out to the petitioners on different occasions and, therefore, the petitioners had no right to raise a question of title. Despite arriving at the aforementioned conclusion, the Collector still proceeded to examine the matter on merits and held that the land belonged to the Gram Panchayat, the petitioners were not old co-sharers and that the land had not created by applying a prorata cut. The appellate authority upheld the aforementioned order. The petitioners admission that they were tenants under the Gram Panchayat, on payment of rent, dis-entitles them from impugning the title of the Gram Panchayat. 10. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1870 estops a tenant or a person, claiming through such tenant from denying his landlords title. A tenant cannot, except where law so permits, impugn the title of his landlord and, thus, seek to alter the very nature of his possession. The petitioners, being lessees of the Gram Panchayat, which fact is not only admitted, but is also fortified by the entries in the Jamabandis, the lists of lessees and the lease register, were not entitled to raise a dispute regarding the title of the Gram Panchayat. 11. The contention of counsel for the petitioners that this Court, vide order dated 4.4.2002, passed in C.W.P. No. 247 of 2001, had directed decision of a question of title and that the Collector failed to return any finding with respect to the question of title, is incorrect. The Collector has returned a categoric finding that the land vests in the Gram Panchayat, the land is not bachat land, the petitioners are not old right-holders of the village and land was used for common purposes. These findings are sufficient to hold that the petitioners had no right, title or interest in the property in dispute and the land vested in the Gram Panchayat. The order of this Court passed in the aforementioned writ petition, was a prima facie expression of opinion and did not confer any right upon the petitioners and, therefore, cannot be construed to be an expression of opinion, on the merits of the present controversy: 12. Even otherwise, the Collector has decided the question of title and held that as the petitioners were not old right-holders, before consolidation, they had no right to impugn the vesting of land in the Gram Panchayat. No material has been placed before us to challenge the correctness of the aforesaid finding. 13. No other point has been raised by counsel for the petitioners. 14. No material has been placed before us to challenge the correctness of the aforesaid finding. 13. No other point has been raised by counsel for the petitioners. 14. In view of what has been stated above, we find that no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders and consequently dismiss the writ petition in limine with no order as to costs.