Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1431 (PNJ)

Banwari v. State of Haryana

2008-08-21

AJAY K.MITTAL, JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR

body2008
JUDGMENT J.S. Khehar, J. - According to the claim raised by the petitioner, he is a permanent resident of village Sirsi in Tehsil and District Karnal. The petitioners family claims to have been in continuous cultivating possession of the land in dispute which is situated in village Bajida Jattan in Tehsil and District Karnal, since the time of their forefathers. Their possession is stated to have commenced prior to the year 1940. 2. The Gram Panchayat, village Bajida Jattan, filed a petition against the petitioner under the provisions of the Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Public Premises Act), for ejectment from the said land. In the ejectment petition, the Gram Panchayat claimed to be the owner of the land in dispute. It was also the claim of the Grain Panchayat, that the petitioner was in illegal and unauthorised occupation of the same. 3. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that in the written statement filed by the petitioner to the aforesaid ejectment petition, he had expressly raised the plea, that the ejectment petition filed by the Gram Panchayat, village Bajida Jattan, under the provisions of the Public Premises Act, was not maintainable, and that, a petition for ejectment with the prayers made by the Gram Panchayat in the said petition could have only been filed under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation). Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Village Common Lands Act). It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner seriously contests the claim of title at the hands of the Gram Panchayat, and as such, the ejectment petition could not have been disposed of without first settling the issue of title. In this behalf, it is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that even the issue of title in respect of the land in dispute could have been settled only under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. It is, accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, under the Public Premises Act that the authorities while adjudicating upon the claim raised by the Gram Panchayat had adjudicated on a matter which is totally beyond their jurisdiction. 4. It is, accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, under the Public Premises Act that the authorities while adjudicating upon the claim raised by the Gram Panchayat had adjudicated on a matter which is totally beyond their jurisdiction. 4. In so far as the instant controversy is concerned, it would be pertinent to mention that the matter came to be decided, in the first instance, by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Karnal, vide an order dated 17.7.2006 (Annexure P-4), wherein he arrived at the conclusion, that the Gram Panchayat of village Bajida Jattan, was the owner of the land in dispute, and also, that the petitioner was in an unauthorized and illegal possession of the same. Accordingly, beside ordering the ejectment of the petitioner from the land in question, the petitioner was required to pay the Gram Panchayat of village Bajida Jattan, penalty at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre per annum for having unauthorisedly and illegally occupied the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat. 5. Dissatisfied with the order dated 17.7.2006, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. By an order dated 15.3.2007, the appellate authority set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Karnal, dated 17.7.2006, and remanded the controversy back for re-determination after affording the appellants a full opportunity to lead their evidence. 6. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact, that the issue of jurisdiction raised by him before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Karnal as also, before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, has not been adjudicated upon by the aforesaid authorities. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, is that the petitioner is unnecessarily being harassed at the hands of the authorities under the provisions of the Public Premises Act, despite the fact that the authorities under the Public Premises Act have no jurisdiction to deal with the controversy in hand. Even though, stricto sensu, there is no order at the moment, which can be stated to be against the interest of the petitioner, the instant writ petition has been filed so as to restrain the Gram Panchayat of village Bajida Jattan from harassing the petitioner before an authority which has no jurisdiction to deal with the controversy raised by it. 7. 7. As against the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents states, that the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner has been adjudicated upon by a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Piari v. Joint Director, Panchayats (Pb), 1993(2) PLR 121, wherein it has been authoritatively concluded, that it is at the discretion of the Gram Panchayat to choose its remedy for the eviction of a person in unauthorised occupation of land belonging to the Gram Panchayat. In this behalf, it is asserted that in Ram Piaris case (supra), it has been concluded, that an eviction petition as the one filed by respondent No. 3 in the instant case, can be preferred either under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act or under the Provisions of the Public Premises Act. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to counter the submission advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents, has pointed out, that there is a substantial difference in the definition of the term "public premises" under the Public Premises Act, applicable for the State of Punjab, as also, the one applicable for the State of Haryana. The term "public premises" in the Punjab Public Premises Act has been defined under section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act, as under :- "2(e). The term "public premises" in the Punjab Public Premises Act has been defined under section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act, as under :- "2(e). "public premises" means any premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of the State Government and includes any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by or on behalf of - (i) any Municipal Committee, Notified Area Committee, Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samiti, Panchayat or Improvement Trust; (ii) any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), in which not less than fifty one per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government; and (iii) any Corporation not being a company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or a local authority established by or under a Central Act as defined in clause (7) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, or a Punjab Act owned or controlled by the State Government;" Referring to clause (i) of Section 2(e) of the Punjab Public Premises Act, as applicable for the State of Punjab, it is submitted that the premises belonging to a "Panchayat Smiti" or a "Panchayat" is expressly included under the definition of the term "public premises" for the State of Punjab. It is, however, contended that the aforesaid provision as applicable for Haryana, is substantially different from the one applicable in the State of Punjab. Section 2(e) defining the term "public premises" for the State of Haryana, under the Haryana Public Premises Act is being extracted hereunder :- "2(e). "public premises" means any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of the Government, or requisitioned by the competent authority under the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1954, and includes any premises belonging to any local authority of District Soldiers and Airmens Board as any University established by Law." 9. "public premises" means any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of the Government, or requisitioned by the competent authority under the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1954, and includes any premises belonging to any local authority of District Soldiers and Airmens Board as any University established by Law." 9. Inviting the Courts attention to the definition of the term "public premises" for the State of Haryana, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the land owned by the Gram Panchayat cannot be stated to be included within the definition of the term "public premises" for the State of Haryana, and as such, an ejectment petition can not be filed in the State of Haryana at the hands of a Gram Panchayat for the eviction of an individual allegedly in unauthorised or illegal occupation of land owned by the Gram Panchayat. In order to substantiate his aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment rendered by this Court in Roshan @ Roshan Lal v. Secretary, Govt. of Haryana, 1998(3) PLR 651, wherein it has been held, that an ejectment petition filed against a person in unathorised or illegal possession of land owned by the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of the Haryana Public Premises Act, was not maintainable, and that, a petition for ejectment the at hands of the Gram Panchayat was only competent under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. 10. Having heard the learned counsel the parties and having examined the substantial difference in the term "public premises" as is applicable to the States of Punjab and Haryana, and having perused the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Roshan @ Roshan Lals case (supra), we find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. We are of the view, that a petition for eviction of an unauthorised or illegal occupant of a Gram Panchayat land is not maintainable under the provisions of the Public Premises Act in the State of Haryana, and that, such a petition can only be filed by the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is allowed. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is allowed. Proceedings initiated by the Gram Panchayat against the petitioner under the provisions of the Public Premises Act, are hereby set aside. Liberty is, however, granted to respondent No. 3 i.e. the Gram Panchayat of village Bajida Jattan, to file a fresh petition for the eviction of the petitioner, if it is so advised, under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. Disposed of accordingly. Petition allowed.