Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1726 (PNJ)

Thakur Dwara v. Commissioner, Jalandhar Division

2013-12-19

BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON

body2013
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. 1. Dispute in this petition pertains to a plot of land measuring 113' x 154' which the petitioner-Sabha had taken on lease from Municipal Committee, Tarn Taran, for the purpose of providing play ground to the students of its school. It is claimed by the petitioner-Sabha that this play ground continues to be in existence and is being used by the students. Respondent No. 3 had sought eviction of the petitioner and 17 others under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), claiming, that they were unauthorised possession on the public premises belonging to Municipal Committee, Tarn Taran. Though this eviction application vide order of Collector (Annexure P- 5), Tarn Taran, was rejected but appeal of respondent No. 3 against this order was accepted on 31.08.1994 vide order Annexure P-8. By filing this petition, order dated 31.08.1994 (Annexure P-8) is sought to be quashed by issuance of writ of certiorari. Plea of the petitioner-Sabha is that neither the land was taken from the Municipal Committee nor there was any connection of such Committee with the land of the School. It is rather urged that the land was owned by the Sabha as the same had been taken by it from the Central Government. It is asserted that Municipal Committee, Tarn Taran, is not owner of the land. 2. Per contra contention of the Municipal Committee, Tarn Taran, is that the land belongs to it and in fact, had been leased out to the petitioner-Sabha for facility of play ground for students of the School run by the Sabha. It is urged that the petitioner-Sabha raised construction in the nature of a commercial complex and when notice was given to stop such construction, title of the Sabha was denied and petitioner-Sabha had become unauthorised occupant thereof. It is urged that having been defeated at the legal hustings, the petitioner- Sabha has no ground to stand in. It is pleaded that the petition is a calculated device of the petitioner-Sabha to gain time. It is asserted that the petitioner-Sabha in a way intend to perpetuate its unauthorised possession since the time of filing of this petition till date whereas in terms of order dated 31.08.1994 (Annexure P-8), the petitioner-Sabha was required to deliver the vacant possession of the site within one month of passing the order. 3. It is asserted that the petitioner-Sabha in a way intend to perpetuate its unauthorised possession since the time of filing of this petition till date whereas in terms of order dated 31.08.1994 (Annexure P-8), the petitioner-Sabha was required to deliver the vacant possession of the site within one month of passing the order. 3. It is not in dispute that petitioner-Sabha is running a school known as Sanatan Dharam Girls High School, Tarn Taran. Apart from the educational facilities, the school also provides facilities for games and other extra curricular activities to its students. It is clear that plot measuring 113' X 154' was taken from respondent No. 3 by the petitioner-Sabha for providing play ground to its school. Dispute arose between the parties somewhere in May, 1985 when the petitioner-Sabha allegedly started raising unauthorised construction in the shape of a commercial complex on the disputed property. Sequelly, notice dated 23.05.1985 was issued to the petitioner-Sabha but neither further construction was stopped nor existing one was demolished. Acting arrogantly, respondents No. 3 to 18 were inducted as tenants by the Sabha resulting in eviction proceedings against all of them including the petitioner-Sabha. Record reveals that no separate reply to application of respondent-Municipal Committee under the Act for eviction of respondents No. 3 to 18 was preferred by the Sabha. Order (Annexure P-5), however, reveals that the Sabha had claimed ownership of the site, asserting, that the site had been taken by it from the Central Government. 4. Claim of the petitioner-Sabha that the application for eviction of Sabha was without details of the land, is misnomer. In the petition itself, there is admission made by the Sabha with regard to identity of the site in dispute. Para No. 4 of the petition for ready reference is reproduced as below: "That the Sabha had taken on lease a small plot of land measuring 113'X154' from respondent No. 3, Municipal Committee, Tarn Taran for the purpose of providing the ground for games etc. to the students. The said play grounds continued to be in existence till date and are being used as such." 5. to the students. The said play grounds continued to be in existence till date and are being used as such." 5. Merely because some other land allegedly had also been taken by the Sabha from Central Government as per jamabandi Annexure P-1, regarding which there is no cogent and convincing proof and it cannot be said that the offending construction has not been raised on the land in dispute as is mentioned in para No. 4 of the petition but in land mentioned in para No. 5 thereof. Making assertion that no construction has been raised on land mentioned in para No. 4 of the petition and which is subject matter of the rent note between the Sabha and respondent No. 3, it is sweepingly claimed by the petitioner-Sabha that in fact the construction has been raised on land mentioned in para No. 5 of the petition which was allegedly in the ownership of Central Government. 6. There is no document produced on record to show that the land mentioned in jamabandi (Annexure P-1 transliteration whereof is Annexure P1/T) had been transferred in the name of the petitioner-Sabha. This jamabandi (Annexure P-1) has seen light of the day for the first time in this petition itself and had never been produced before the authorities below. It is evident that copy of jamabandi (Annexure P-1) is shown to have been issued on 04.01.1995 whereas the last order i.e. pronounced by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, i.e. respondent No. 1 is of 31.08.1994 (Annexure P-8). Plea of the Sabha that the authorities below had the entire record including jamabandi (Annexure P-1) with them, this is factually incorrect. 7. Repeated reference made to jamabandi (Annexure P1/T) reveals that the land mentioned therein though is shown in the ownership of the Central Government and further in possession of Sanatan Dharam Girls School, Tarn Taran, there is no mention that it is being used as play ground. On the other hand, it is an admitted fact that the land in dispute was taken by the Sabha particularly for providing a play ground to the students of its school and thus, by own showing of the petitioner, disputed land could not have been used for any other purpose than for play ground for the school. On the other hand, it is an admitted fact that the land in dispute was taken by the Sabha particularly for providing a play ground to the students of its school and thus, by own showing of the petitioner, disputed land could not have been used for any other purpose than for play ground for the school. It is also admitted by the petitioner-Sabha that change of land use of the disputed land from play ground to a commercial complex was not even contemplated by the rent deed. 8. Site Plan (Annexure R-3/1) showing measurement of the land as 113' x 154' and identifying it well leaves no manner of doubt that it pertains to the land in dispute. It is further revealed from this document that the land as it exists today is entirely changed. The play ground has been reduced to a piece of land with measurement of 99' x 143'. In remaining portion of the disputed land on lease with the petitioner-Sabha, the shops on northern side and some class rooms on Eastern side have been constructed reducing the play ground to the measurement of 99' x 143'. There is construction of class rooms on the Eastern side and thereafter, there is post office whereas there is construction of multiple shops on the Northern side. It is further to be seen from Annexure R-3/1 that there is railway road on the West and there is way to Mandir whereas on the South there is existing school building. This site is recorded in the ownership of Municipal Committee in Annexure R-3/2 with further entries that the land continues with the Sabha for play ground of the school right from 1960-61. 9. Counsel for the petitioner-Sabha had no explanation to offer in the interface of averments in para 4 of the petition in the form of admission and have been appended in the earlier part of the judgment. 9. Counsel for the petitioner-Sabha had no explanation to offer in the interface of averments in para 4 of the petition in the form of admission and have been appended in the earlier part of the judgment. When averments in para 4 of the petition are controverted with details of site plan (Annexure R-3/1), counsel for the petitioner had no explanation much less satisfactory to offer as to how play ground of measurement of 113' x 154' had been reduced to a measurement of 99' x 143' juxtaposition of site plan (Annexure R-3/1) with admitted contents of para 4 of the petition, there does not remain any dispute that construction in the nature of shops has come up at the instance of the Sabha diluting and reducing the space of play ground for the students. Claim of the Sabha, thus, is not only wrong and fabricated but also hits at the very root of genuineness of its claim which it had been parroting call through. 10. It is, thus, abundantly clear that merely by having some other land from Central Government on which the school building exists, the Sabha had tried to mix up the identity of both the lands with a view to thwart its eviction by the respondent-Municipal Committee. Dispute of identity, thus has, unnecessarily been brought in by the Sabha whereas documents of respondent No. 1 in the shape of resolution of 1985 (Annexure R3/3), Jamabandi (Annexure R3/2) and Site Plan (Annexure R3/1) are in favour of respondent-Municipal Committee. It is clear that having entered into possession of the site in dispute as a tenant, the petitioner-Sabha had started denying the title of its landlord without contemplating its extremely evil legal consequence in terms of Section 116 of the Evidence Act which render it as unauthorised occupant. Following findings of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar i.e. The appellate authority under the Act, are noteworthy:-- "The ownership of the Municipal Committee is established from the rent deed, as referred to in the application itself by the Municipal Committee dated 30.04.1964. He stated that a tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his landlords' title. In this regard he has cited 1993 PLJ page 599, where it has been held that a person inducted into land as a tenant cannot deny title of his landlord. He stated that a tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his landlords' title. In this regard he has cited 1993 PLJ page 599, where it has been held that a person inducted into land as a tenant cannot deny title of his landlord. Although the respondent has argued that the property belongs to Central Government, yet no evidence has come on record to establish this specific point. The property is entered into the property register of the Municipal Committee at Sr. No. 22 and 33. The property register has not been prepared by the Municipal committee overnight." It was further held as under: "From a critical analysis of the arguments advanced and as well as scrutiny of the file, it is evident that the respondents have no legs to stand. While the Municipal Committee has referred to the property register and the rent deed executed with the respondents Thakardwara, on the other hand the respondents have not referred to even a single documentary evidence in their favour. They have not referred to even a single documentary evidence in their favour. They have not brought on record any revenue document to substantiate their ownership to the property. They have also not rebutted the notice issued by the Municipal Committee for stopping illegal construction on the rented premises. From examination of the file, it transpires that the respondents have tried to usurp the common property of the citizens managed by the Municipal Committee. The Municipal Committee had given the property on lease to be utilized as a play ground by the school children which is being managed by the Thakardwara. However, the property was never let out for allowing the respondent to raise unauthorised construction and build shops. The rent deed never intended the change of land uses. In case the respondent wanted to make any change in the land use, the permission of the owner/appellant was necessary. From my discussion as above, I am of the considered view that the property belongs to the Municipal Committee and the respondents have not only violated the condition of the rent deed but also raised unauthorised construction on the said premises." (emphasis by underlining the relevant text has been added.) 11. Position thus has been made abundantly clear in the impugned order Annexure P-8. 12. Citing Govt. Position thus has been made abundantly clear in the impugned order Annexure P-8. 12. Citing Govt. of A.P. v. Thummalla Krishna Rao and another AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1081 and Dr. Yash Paul Gupta v. Dr. S.S. Anand and others, AIR 1980 Jammu & Kashmir 16, learned counsel for the petitioner-Sabha has urged that there is bona fide dispute regarding the title and thus, the matter of title is to be decided by the Civil Court and the matter cannot be adjudicated under the Act. In view of the discussion made earlier, it is clear there is no dispute either of identity of property or of title thereto and the petitioner has unsuccessfully tried to import confusion to avoid its eviction and thus, these authorities do not come to the rescue of the petitioner. 13. Making reference to Ram Chander v. The State of Punjab 1962 PLR 997 (P&H) claim of learned counsel for the petitioner is that notice Annexure P-2 neither mentions the grounds of eviction nor answers the requirements of the Act. Since the notice specifically called upon the petitioner-Sabha to stop the illegal and unauthorised construction on the land of respondent No. 3 under it for play ground of its school, there is neither any question of mistaken identity nor confusion or uncertainty as claimed by the petitioner-Sabha about the grounds taken for eviction of the tenant-Sabha. For the same reasons, authority cited as Bhagat Singh v. Delhi Development Authority, 1988(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 670 : 1988(1) CLJ, 4 (Delhi High Court) holding that notice under the Act must contain description of the public premises is of no advantage to the petitioner-Sabha. 14. All the unauthorised occupants of the public premises are the parties to the litigation and were duly served through the notices. Some of those had even filed their individual written statements. To demonstrate, written statement of respondent No. 18 of 04.02.1987 is on record; all the respondents are duly contesting the petition. 15. 14. All the unauthorised occupants of the public premises are the parties to the litigation and were duly served through the notices. Some of those had even filed their individual written statements. To demonstrate, written statement of respondent No. 18 of 04.02.1987 is on record; all the respondents are duly contesting the petition. 15. When the petitioner-Sabha has not disputed its possession over the site mentioned in para No. 4 of the petition and which land from the very beginning is clearly is subject matter of the proceedings under the Act, authority reported as Harbhajan Singh alias Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab1991(2) R.R.R. 314 : 1991(2) PLR (P&H) 681 where identity of the property under the lease was in dispute is of no avail to the petitioner-Sabha. 16. There is no case of the petitioner that the construction raised on the site was of the year 1985 or that there is absence of nexus of the notice (Annexure P-2) with the construction raised on the site, thus in these circumstances, to claim that the application under the Act was filed belatedly is a ground which is neither here nor there and is clearly beyond pleadings. Sequelly Krothapalli Satyanarayana v. Koganti Ramaiah and others 1983 AIR (SC) 452 based on the principle of acquiescence under Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 1872, circumstances of the case in hand being entirely different does not enure for the petitioner. 17. In Division Bench authority of this Court reported as Bachan Singh v. Joint Development Commissioner & others, 2001(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 392 : 2000(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 702 : 2001(1) PLR 700 it was held that property is to be considered as the public premises even if the same merely belongs to a Municipal Committee or to a Panchayat and it is not necessary that ownership thereof is established in their favour. There is, thus no dispute that the premises are public premises. As a result of discussion made above, there is not merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.