Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1001 (PNJ)

Jagan Nath v. Commissioner, Patiala Division

2014-07-02

PARAMJEET SINGH

body2014
Paramjeet Singh, J. 1. Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 03.06.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by Deputy Commissioner-Exercising the power of Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, under the Punjab Public Premises & Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (in short, "1973 Act"). In brief, facts giving rise to the present writ petition are to the effect that respondent No. 3-Na-gar Council, Banur filed application for eviction of the petitioner from the disputed land measuring 9 bighas 4 biswas comprised in khasra Nos. 1274(3-10), 1275(4-0), 1276 min (1-14), situated in Banur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. Notice was issued to the petitioner herein, who filed reply, however, the same is not available on record. In fact, the petitioner moved application for correction of khasra girdawari mentioning that Gurdit Singh, husband of Gulzaro, who was cultivating the land, had handed over the possession to him. The petitioner claimed that he had come into possession on the basis of some agreement. As a result of the same, entries were made in favour of the petitioner. The application for correction of khasra girdawari was dismissed by the Assistant Collector-II Grade, Rajpura and appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Collector, Sub Division, Patiala vide order dated 17.07.2006 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, respondent No. 3-Nagar Council, Banur filed application under Sections 4 and 5 of the 1973 Act for ejectment of the petitioner herein from the disputed land with the averments that Nagar Council, Banur is the owner of the disputed land and petitioner herein is in wrongful possession of the same. The said application was dismissed with an observation that the disputed land is not covered under the 1973 Act. Respondent No. 3- Nagar Council, Banur preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala exercising the powers of Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 03.06.2009 (Annexure P-4). 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Arguments raised by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Patiala was to the effect that Nagar Council, Banur is not the owner of the disputed area. The Nagar Council, Banur has not passed any resolution to file the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the 1973 Act, therefore, Executive Officer, Nagar Council has no right to do so. 3. Arguments raised by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Patiala was to the effect that Nagar Council, Banur is not the owner of the disputed area. The Nagar Council, Banur has not passed any resolution to file the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the 1973 Act, therefore, Executive Officer, Nagar Council has no right to do so. On 14.05.1994, one Gurdit Singh filed a civil suit against Nagar Council, Banur and decree was passed to the effect that he could be dispossessed from the disputed land only in accordance with law. It was also contended that since the petitioner had purchased the disputed land from Gurdit Singh, his possession was valid and legal and he cannot be evicted. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No. 3 vehemently contend that the petitioner was not in actual physical possession of the land in dispute. He has claimed the possession through Gurdit Singh. The possession of the petitioner was illegal. Otherwise also, Gurdit Singh could not have given the property to him as he was not the owner nor tenancy is transferable. The petitioner has limited rights. As per the revenue record, the petitioner was in illegal possession and ownership of the Gram Panchayat, now Municipal Council, Banur has also not been denied. Learned counsel further contend that possession has already been taken and so has been stated in affidavit dated 21.05.2014 filed by Sh. Sunil Dutt Verma. 5. I have considered the rival contentions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. Vide impugned order dated 03.06.2009, the Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala has recorded the following findings: "I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record of the case. The respondent Jagan Nath has conceded the ownership of the Municipal Council on the land. Though he is admitting the possession over it, he has failed to show in what capacity the respondent has been occupying it. The Civil Court, Rajpura vide order dated 20.11.1996 gave direction that respondent could only be evicted in due course of law. The respondent Jagan Nath has conceded the ownership of the Municipal Council on the land. Though he is admitting the possession over it, he has failed to show in what capacity the respondent has been occupying it. The Civil Court, Rajpura vide order dated 20.11.1996 gave direction that respondent could only be evicted in due course of law. Complying with the directions of civil court, the Municipal Corporation, Banur filed a case u/S 4& 5 of the Act, in the court of Collector, Rajpura Sub Division, Rajpura for the ejectment of the respondent from the municipal land. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that as the municipal body did not use the land for the common purposes, it cannot take recourse to the provisions of the Act, is grossly misplaced and erroneous interpretation of the Act. The respondent has failed to produce any document showing his legal possession over the land. Clearly and admittedly, he is having an illegal possession. Entries in the jamabandi for the year 1981-82 to 2001-02 establish the ownership of the appellant over the land. The learned Collector has erred in holding that the case is not covered under the Act. Rather proceeding under the Act was only lawful course upon the appellant." 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has conceded the ownership of the Municipal Council with regard to the land in question. The petitioner has failed to show in what capacity, he was occupying the land in question. The only direction which was given by the Civil Court was to the effect that Gurdit Singh can be evicted in accordance with law. In compliance with the order of the civil court, Municipal Council, Banur filed application under Sections 4 and 5 of the 1973 Act. The petitioner came into the possession of the suit land through Gurdit Singh on the basis of some agreement between them. Once the documents clearly indicate that ownership of the land in dispute is of Municipal Council, Banur and the same has also been conceded by the petitioner before the Commissioner, his possession cannot be said to be legal and valid. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the Municipal Council and the petitioner. Once the documents clearly indicate that ownership of the land in dispute is of Municipal Council, Banur and the same has also been conceded by the petitioner before the Commissioner, his possession cannot be said to be legal and valid. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the Municipal Council and the petitioner. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that his possession does not fall within the definition of 'tenancy' is not sustainable, as possession has not come by way of inheritance, rather on the basis of some agreement entered into by him with Gurdit Singh. The tenancy is not transferable like in this manner specifically. Moreover, the possession has already been taken in due course of law. The possession of the petitioner over the disputed land was illegal and invalid under the provisions of the 1973 Act. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.