Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1356 (PNJ)

Surjeet Singh v. Commissioner, Ambala

2013-10-08

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2013
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged orders dated 25.11.2010 passed by respondent No. 2; and 14.9.2011 passed by respondent No. 1, qua his ejectment from the land in dispute. The brief facts of the case are that the State of Haryana filed a petition under the Public Premises & Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 [for short "the Act"] seeking eviction of the petitioner from the land measuring 4 kanals 3 marla comprising in Khewat/Khatauni No. 16/34 Khasra No. 31/1/2 min measuring 1 kanal 10 marla and Khewat/Khatauni No. 39 min/60 Khasra No. 30/1/1(1-12), 1/3(1-1) situated at Village Lakhanaur Sahib H.B. 183 Tehsil & District Ambala. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner herein is in unauthorised and illegal possession over the land in dispute since 1990-1993 and has failed to vacate the said land despite notice. In the written statement, the stand taken by the petitioner was that he is occupying the land in question in his own right as allottee/owner because he had deposited Rs. 1777/- towards 1/4th of the total sale consideration of Rs. 10725/-. 2. It is pertinent to mention that in his entire written statement he did not utter a word that he is in possession by way of inheritance of some tenancy rights possessed by his predecessors-in-interest. 3. The Collector, vide his detailed order dated 25.11.2010, found the petitioner to be in unauthorized possession without payment of any Chakota etc. and ordered his eviction besides asking him to pay Rs. 5000/- per acre per year, from the year 1992 as compensation and damages to the State. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Commissioner Ambala Division, Ambala on 14.9.2011. 4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid orders, the present writ petition has been filed in which the petitioner has averred that the land was owned by one Mukh Devi. It was cultivated by Kahla Singh (father of the petitioner) prior to the year 1966 and after the death of Kahla Singh, the petitioner has become owner in possession of the land in question because after the death of Mukh Devi, the land in question vested in the State in terms of mutation No. 2 passed by Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Ambala on 26.11.1966 by way of escheat as there was no one to succeed Mukh Devi. It is also alleged that after becoming the owner, the State auctioned the land in question in the year 1988 in which the petitioner was the highest bidder for Rs. 7100/- and paid 1/4th of auction money i.e. Rs. 1775/- on 13.6.1988 to the SDO (Civil), Ambala but the concerned authorities did not confirm the auction. Later on the land in question was re-auctioned on 16.6.1990 in which the petitioner was again declared as the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 12,500/- and an amount of Rs. 10,275/- was deposited on 18.6.1990 in the Treasury. However, in the year 2001, the petition under Section 5 & 7of the Act was filed against him, though the petitioner is not in unauthorised possession, rather is in possession as the owner. It was also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in dispute was cultivated by his father under Mukh Devi, therefore, when the land was escheated to the State, his lather became the tenant of the State and after his death, the tenancy rights have been inherited by him, hence, he cannot be termed to be an unauthorised occupant. 5. On the other hand, the case set up by the respondents/State is that the land in dispute was declared as Nazul land vide orders dated 26.11.1969 and 7.6.1978 passed by Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Ambala. The petitioner entered into possession by virtue of auction on Chakota on yearly basis, which has already been expired, he has not paid Chakota thereafter and is in unauthorized possession since 1992-93 as the Chakota money deposited by the petitioner vide Challan No. 790 dated 23.4.1992 was only for the year 1991-92. It is also submitted that the land in dispute was auctioned by the SDO (Civil), Ambala on 3.6.1988 for Rs. 7100/-. The petitioner deposited 1/4th amount i.e. Rs. 1775/- on 13.6.1988 but the auction was not confirmed by the competent authority i.e. Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala vide his letter dated 7.6.1989. Accordingly, the land in dispute was re-auctioned on 16.6.1990 in which the petitioner was again the highest bidder against Rs. 12,500/- but the competent authority did not confirm the auction and the file was returned being not found fit for auction vide order dated 12.11.1990. Accordingly, the land in dispute was re-auctioned on 16.6.1990 in which the petitioner was again the highest bidder against Rs. 12,500/- but the competent authority did not confirm the auction and the file was returned being not found fit for auction vide order dated 12.11.1990. It is thus, submitted that since the auction has not been confirmed in favor of the petitioner, therefore, he has not become the owner and as he has not paid Chakota since 1992-93, he was found to be in unauthorised possession and proceedings were initiated against him under the provisions of the Act in which both the authorities have decided against him. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to bring on record any document to show that he had become the owner of the land in dispute in the auction conducted by SDO (Civil), Ambala. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents/State that the petitioner was the highest bidder in auction and had deposited 1/4th money as well but the said auction was not confirmed by the competent authority, therefore, until and unless, the auction is confirmed by the competent authority, no right of ownership could have vested in the petitioner to claim ownership of the property in dispute to escape from the rigour of Section 5 & 7 of the Act under which the application for ejectment has been filed and allowed by the competent authority. 7. Insofar as the possessory title is concerned, the petitioner has not set up his case as such in his reply/pleadings in the ejectment proceedings and is thus after thought. Had it been the case of the petitioner that he is in possession through his father, who was the tenant of Mukh Devi then he would have set up his case in the written statement as well rather he had only set up his defence that he has become the owner by virtue of auction after depositing 1/4th of the auction money. The respondents/State has placed on record orders of the Collector, Ambala dated 15.3.1991 and 21.1.1992 to show that the land in dispute was given to the petitioner on Chakota at the rate of Rs. The respondents/State has placed on record orders of the Collector, Ambala dated 15.3.1991 and 21.1.1992 to show that the land in dispute was given to the petitioner on Chakota at the rate of Rs. 150/- for the year 1991-92 and thereafter the land was not given to him on Chakota basis but the petitioner is in continuing possession even without paying the amount of Chakota and has rightly been termed as an unauthorised occupant. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the Collector and the Commissioner, while passing the impugned orders have not committed any error as the petitioner has been enjoying the fruits of the land in dispute without paying any Chakota to the State since 1992-93 onwards. Consequently, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed.