Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2263 (PNJ)

Ajit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2006-05-22

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, MAHESH GROVER

body2006
Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. The prayer made in this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the quashment of order dated 18.9.2003 (Annexure P-3) passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Gurdaspur exercising the power of Collector (respondent No. 3) as well as the order dated 11.3.2004 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Joint Development Commissioner (JRD) exercising the powers of Commissioner (respondent No. 2) whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute measuring 14 marlas and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,88,000/- for the unauthorised use and occupation of the land for a period of 12 years being 20 times of the amount of auction of Rs. 2,450/-. 2. In brief it is the case of the petitioner that he is in possession of the land in dispute measuring 14 marlas (which is adjacent to his house) for the last about 30 years. He has raised the boundary wall and using the same as courtyard and manure pits. According to him, he has also installed a hand pump, toka machine and a manger therein. He had also filed a Civil suit for the grant of permanent injunction against the Nagar Panchayat, Kalanaour, and its Administrator, restraining them from interfering in his peaceful possession and dispossessing him forcibly and illegally. The requisite injunction was granted by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, vide order dated 31.1.2001 (Annexure P-2). However, liberty was granted to the defendants therein to take possession of the land by adopting the procedure laid down by law. Accordingly, the Gram Panchayat, Kalanour, moved an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961 (for short the Act) for getting eviction of the petitioner from the land in dispute and also made a prayer for imposition of penalty upon him to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In order to controvert the allegations contained in the application, the petitioner filed written statement wherein it was pleaded that he had been in possession of the suit land since Consolidation and has constructed a house and raised boundary wall for the last about 30 years. However, on the date fixed for arguments, neither the petitioner nor his counsel put in appearance. However, on the date fixed for arguments, neither the petitioner nor his counsel put in appearance. Consequently, the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Gurdaspur (respondent No. 3) vide ex parte order dated 18.9.2003 (Annexure P-3) allowed the application filed by the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 4) and ordered the eviction of the petitioner and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,88,000/- for the unauthorised use of the land in dispute. The appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD)(respondent No. 2) vide order dated 11.3.2004 (Annexure P-4). Both the orders passed respectively by respondent Nos. 3 and 2 are under challenge in the present petition. 3. In order to controvert the allegations contained in the petition, the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 4) filed a detailed written statement wherein a preliminary objection has been taken that the petitioner has filed another C.W.P. No. 4710 of 2004 pertaining to the same land wherein he has prayed that he may be allowed to exchange the said land with the land belonging to him or he may be allowed to purchase the land in dispute at market value. Another preliminary objection raised by respondent No. 4 is that the possession of the land in dispute has already been taken by it vide Rapat Roznamacha No. 106 dated 10.11.2003, a copy of which has been annexed with the written statement as Annexure R-4/1. In order to contradict the stand taken by the petitioner that he has been in possession of the land in dispute for the last about 30 years, the Gram Panchayat has pleaded in the Preliminary Objections that the land in dispute was leased out by it to one Pargat Singh son of Dalbir Singh for a sum of Rs. 2,450/- per annum for a period of three years in the public auction held on 24.5.1991. A translated copy of the relevant proceedings book has been annexed with the written statement as Annexure R-4/3. The stand taken by the Gram Panchayat is that the petitioner unauthor-isedly trespassed into the land in dispute in the year 1996-97. 4. The petitioner filed replication to the written statement filed by the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 4) wherein he stated that he had filed C.W.P. No. 4710 of 2004 where he was not aware of the order dated 11.3.2004 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Joint Development Commissioner (respondent No. 2). 4. The petitioner filed replication to the written statement filed by the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 4) wherein he stated that he had filed C.W.P. No. 4710 of 2004 where he was not aware of the order dated 11.3.2004 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Joint Development Commissioner (respondent No. 2). It has also been pleaded in the replication that the land in dispute was in the physical possession of the petitioner even today. 5. The primary submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the land in dispute has been in possession of the petitioner for the last 30 years and the fact about his possession becomes clear from the judgment dated 31.1.2001 passed by the Civil Court whereby permanent injunction has been issued against the Gram Panchayat. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondents submit that the possession of the land in dispute has already been delivered to the Gram Panchayat on 10.11.2003 as per Rapat Roznamcha Vakiati No. 106 (Annexure R-4/1), It has further been contended that the petitioner entered into the illegal and forcible possession of the land in the year 1996-97 and not earlier to that. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file meticulously. 8. Whatever may be the case of the petitioner, the fact goes undisputed that as per the Jamabandi entries for the year 1992-93 (Annexure R-4/2) the land in dispute has been recorded as Panchayat Deh in the column of ownership. In the column relating to possession the entry is Khudkasht and Makbooja Malkan. It also sands proved from Annexure R-4/3 that the said land was leased out to one Pargat Singh at a rent of Rs. 2,450/- per annum on 24.5.1991 for a period of three years. Thus, it shows that the land in dispute was not in possession of the petitioner as per the jamabandi for the year 1992-93. Rather it seems that the petitioner might have entered into the possession of the land in dispute after the lease period of three years in favour of Pargat Singh was over. This lease in favour of Pargat Singh ended in May, 1994. The petitioner could make his entry to the land in dispute only thereafter. Rather it seems that the petitioner might have entered into the possession of the land in dispute after the lease period of three years in favour of Pargat Singh was over. This lease in favour of Pargat Singh ended in May, 1994. The petitioner could make his entry to the land in dispute only thereafter. It proves that the plea taken by the Gram Panchayat that the petitioner took the illegal and unauthorised possession of the land in dispute in the year 1995-96 is correct. 9. Another fact which contradicts the theory of possession of the petitioner for the last about 30 years is that the petitioner moved an application before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (D), Gurdaspur (exercising the powers of Collector) (Annexure R4/6) on 15.7.2003 with regard to the exchange of the land in dispute with the land belonging to the petitioner at some other place. The said application was forwarded to the Gram Panchayat, Kalanaur by the Additional Deputy Commissioner for consideration. Consequently, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution dated 7.9.2003 (Annexure R-4/4) whereby it rejected the prayer made by the petitioner for exchange of the land in dispute, which belonged the Gram Panchayat. Consequent upon passing of the resolution by the Gram Panchayat, the Additional Deputy Commissioner passed the order dated 29.1.2004 (Annexure R-4/6) whereby the prayer made by the petitioner was rejected. 10. Not only this, the fact also goes undisputed that the petitioner has filed another Civil Writ Petition No. 4710 of 2004 in this Court wherein prayer has been made by him that he may be allowed to get the land in dispute in exchange of some land belonging to him. 11. The aforementioned undisputed facts take us to nowhere but to conclude that land in dispute measuring 14 marlas is owned by the Gram Panchayat and the petitioner has taken forcible and unauthorised possession thereof somewhere in the year 1996-97 as in the jamabandi relating to the year 1997-98 the petitioner has been mentioned as the person in its possession. This forcible and unauthorised possession of the land belonging to the Panchayat cannot entitle the petitioner to continue therewith. The petitioner has failed to prove his long possession by adducing any documentary evidence. 12. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. This forcible and unauthorised possession of the land belonging to the Panchayat cannot entitle the petitioner to continue therewith. The petitioner has failed to prove his long possession by adducing any documentary evidence. 12. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. The interim order of stay dated 10.6.2004 passed by this Court stands vacated. 13. At this stage it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the penalty of Rs. 5,88,000/- imposed upon the petitioner is much on the higher side. The counsel has submitted that the amount of penalty may substantially be reduced. 14. We consider merit in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is proved to have taken forcible and unauthorised possession of the land in dispute measuring 14 marlas somewhere in the year 1996-97. The said land was given on lease to Pargat Singh at the rate of Rs. 2,450/- per annum, for a period of three years on 24.5.1991. Even the Gram Panchayat had made a prayer for imposition of penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- upon the petitioner, in the application under Section 7 of the Act filed before the District Development and Panchayat Officer (respondent No. 3). In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that penalty of the tune of Rs. 5,88,000/- imposed upon the petitioner deserves to be reduced substantially. Consequently, it is ordered that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to Rs. 30,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of penalty as Panchayat Fund within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. He is also directed to hand over the vacant possession of the land in dispute to the Gram Panchayat immediately on receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the petitioner does not comply with this order within the stipulated period of 30 days, then the amount of penalty shall remain the same as mentioned in the impugned orders.