Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 613 (PNJ)

Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2015-04-08

P.B.BAJANTHRI, SURYA KANT

body2015
Surya Kant, J. 1. This order shall dispose of LPA Nos. 1827 to 1843, 1987 of 2014 as all the appeals are directed against the order dated August 28, 2014 whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed a bunch of 19 writ petitions in which, the appellant(s) laid challenge to the respective eviction orders passed against them under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (in short, 'the 1973 Act'). Since the point in issue is common and for brevity as well, LPA No. 1827 of 2014 is being treated as the lead case. 2. The facts may be briefly noticed. One Mohammed Abdul Bari Khan was a big landlord of village Saidanwala @ Naiwala, Tehsil and District Patiala who owned land measuring 3490 bigha and 19 biswa. He was under the State debt for a sum of ` 50,000/-with interest accrued thereupon, and with a view to discharge that debt liability, firstly he hypothecated his land measuring 1010 bigha and 8 biswa in favour of PEPSU State (Patiala and East Punjab State Union) and then transferred the said land to the State Government towards full and final settlement of the loan amount vide agreement dated 05.03.1954 (Annexure P1) duly signed by the Chief Secretary, PEPSU State and the loanee-cum-landlord. Two Khasra Nos. 100 & 113 were, however, excluded for the reason that those Nos. had already been acquired by the State Government for construction of Bhakra canal. 3. The ownership of the subject-land was thus transferred in favour of the State Government free from all encumbrances. 4. The appellant's own case was that vide notification No. 3059-FT-58/1949 dated 24th June, 1958, Governor of Punjab (meanwhile PEPSU merged in Punjab State) in exercise of powers conferred by Section 29 of the Patiala Forest Act No. VII of 1999 BK and all other enabling powers declared "the strips of Government waste lands demarcated by boundary pillars whether under the tree growth or not, on either side of or adjustment to all canals including new canals, feeders, branches, distributaries, minors and escapes etc. under the charge of Irrigation Department, Punjab in Patiala Civil Division of "erstwhile PEPSU State" to be "Second Class Forests" and the provisions of Chapter-IV and Section 68 of the said Act were made applicable. 5. under the charge of Irrigation Department, Punjab in Patiala Civil Division of "erstwhile PEPSU State" to be "Second Class Forests" and the provisions of Chapter-IV and Section 68 of the said Act were made applicable. 5. Thereafter, Punjab Government issued yet another notification No. 3059-FT-58/1951 published on 11.07.1958 which reads as follows:-- "No.3059-Ft-58/1951 - Whereas by Punjab Government Notification No. 3059-FT-58/1949 dated the 24th of June, 1958, all strips of Government waste lands, demarcated by boundary pillars whether under tree growth or not on either side of or adjacent to all canals including new canals, feeders, nalies, distributaries, minors and escapes etc. Patiala charge of Irrigation Department, Punjab Patiala Civil Division (erstwhile Pepsu State) been declared as Second Class Forests under Section 29 of the Patiala Forest Act 1999 (No.I of 1999). RULES 1. No person shall cut fell or lop any tree for any purpose whatsoever of sheme [sic] any forest produce without the previous permission of the Divisional Forest officer for the time being in charge of the Forest Division in which such lands are situated provided that in terms of emergency Executive Engineers in charge of canals may not fell or lop any tree for use of the canals. 2. No person shall held pasture, graze or retain sheep, goats or other cattle on the lands specified in the Punjab Government notification No. 3059-Ft-58/1949 dated the 24th June, 1958. However the Divisional Forest Officer of the Forest Division concerned may permit grazing by a limited number of cattle. 3. No person shall clear or break up land without previous permission of the Divisional Forest Officer concerned. The Executive Engineers in charge of canals may however permit breaking up of land and remove earth for the use on roads and canals in time of emergency. The Irrigation Department in charge of the canal tracks may, however permit the breaking up of land and removed earth for use on the canal tracks as and when required. 4. No person shall cut or remove grass without the approval of the Divisional Forest Officer of the Forest Division concerned on the condition that the grass is cut above ground with a dranti. 5. No person shall set fire to grass, trees or timber or kindle fire on the land without taking reasonable precautions to prevent its spreading. 6. 4. No person shall cut or remove grass without the approval of the Divisional Forest Officer of the Forest Division concerned on the condition that the grass is cut above ground with a dranti. 5. No person shall set fire to grass, trees or timber or kindle fire on the land without taking reasonable precautions to prevent its spreading. 6. Income from compounding of offences against these rules under section 63 of the Patiala Forest Act, shall be credited to Government." 6. It may be seen from the joint reading of both the notifications that the strips of Government lands on both sides of canals, feeders, branches, distributaries, minors etc. were declared as Second Class Forests and the management of such lands was vested in the Forest Department as both the notifications were issued by the Forest Department (FT delineates Forest) and all the non-forestry activities were banned. 7. The appellant(s) with the passage of time took over the possession of above-mentioned Government land. While they claim themselves to be the lessee(s), the authorities allege that they illegally encroached upon the Government land. The question of appellants' status as 'occupiers' of the land is being dealt with separately in this order. 8. The Divisional Forest Officer at Patiala filed an eviction application against the appellant(s) under Section 4, 5&7 of the 1973 Act, inter alia, alleging that the appellant(s) is/are in illegal occupation of the forest land. The eviction applications) was allowed by Collector, Sub Division, Samana vide order dated 21.04.2005 but the Appellate Authority remanded the case for determination of the question whether the subject land was owned by the 'Revenue Department' or the 'Forest Department' and out of the two, who could initiate the eviction proceedings? It was nonetheless an admitted fact that the subject land is owned by Punjab Government, whether through Forest Department or the Revenue Department. The Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) vide order dated 19.04.2007 then got impleaded the Tehsildar, Patran as a co-petitioner in the eviction application(s) as a representative of the Revenue Department. 9. The Collector thereafter dismissed the eviction application(s) vide order dated 20.10.2010 on a strange ground that the land in question is not covered by the notifications dated 24.06.1958 and 11.07.1958 as it was 2/3 kilometres away from the canal. 9. The Collector thereafter dismissed the eviction application(s) vide order dated 20.10.2010 on a strange ground that the land in question is not covered by the notifications dated 24.06.1958 and 11.07.1958 as it was 2/3 kilometres away from the canal. The above-stated absurd reasoning being contrary to the pleadings and record was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala exercising the powers of Appellate Authority who held that in terms of the Punjab Government notifications, the land had vested in the Forest Department and the appellant(s) being the encroachers could claim no right to retain its possession. The appeals were thus allowed and the eviction order(s) dated 27.09.2011 were passed. 10. The aggrieved appellant(s) approached this Court through writ petitions which have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 28.08.2014 observing that the subject land stood transferred to the Forest Department and in view of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 whereunder various directions have been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the 'forest land' cannot be used for non-forestry purposes. It was further held that the appellant(s) is/are in possession as Billa Lagan Bawaja Najaij Kabja i.e. without payment of any rent and through illegal possession, hence they were rightly ordered to be evicted. The writ petitions were consequently dismissed giving rise to these appeals. 11. We have heard Shri Sarjit Singh, learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellants and gone through the relevant record with his able assistance. 12. The following questions arise for determination:-- "(i). whether the subject-land is owned by Punjab Government through Revenue Department or the Forest Department and does it make any impact on the eviction proceedings under the 1973 Act? (ii). whether the appellants are lessees or illegal occupants over the subject land? (iii). whether the appellants are entitled to purchase the land as a matter of right in their capacity as illegal occupants?" 13. As regards the first question, namely, whether the subject land vests in Punjab State through Revenue Department or the Forest Department, suffice it to mention that the notifications dated 24.06.1958 and 11.07.1958 have been issued in exercise of powers under the erstwhile Patiala Forest Act and by virtue of these notifications, the subject-land was declared as Second Class Forests. As regards the first question, namely, whether the subject land vests in Punjab State through Revenue Department or the Forest Department, suffice it to mention that the notifications dated 24.06.1958 and 11.07.1958 have been issued in exercise of powers under the erstwhile Patiala Forest Act and by virtue of these notifications, the subject-land was declared as Second Class Forests. The administration of (i) Indian Forest Act, 1927; (ii) the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; (iii) the Patiala Forest Act, 1999 (BK); (iv) Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 comprising "Forest Wing" has been entrusted to the 'Department of Agriculture and Forests' under Rule 2 of the Government of Punjab Allocation of Business Rules, 1994. Subsequently, the Department of Agriculture and Forests have been segregated and Forest and Wildlife is now an independent Department which continues to administer the above-mentioned and other related Statutes. 14. There is thus no ambiguity in the stand taken by the official respondents that the subject land vests in the Forest Department only. 15. The appellant(s) have consciously impleaded the State of Punjab through the Secretary, Revenue Department (respondent No. 2) besides impleading the State through Forest Department also. Both respondents No. 1&2 have filed their joint written statement through Divisional Forest Officer, Patiala who has categorically averred that:-- "The land in dispute is part of total land measuring 1400 Kanals 15 Marlas situated at Village Naiwala, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala and the same is the ownership of the Government of Punjab through the Department of Forest. Earlier, the said land was owned by the Canal Department, but later as per the notifications No. 3058-FT-58/1949 dated 24.6.1958 of Govt. of Punjab, the land including the land in dispute of the Canal Department was transferred in the name of the Forest Department. The land in dispute was protected by the Government of Punjab by virtue of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the petitioner has nothing to do with the land in dispute and they are in illegal possession of the land. The Government of Punjab had also established/installed Brick Kilns in the land in dispute which are also owned by the Government of Punjab through the Department of Forest." 16. Thus when there is no discord between the Revenue and Forest Departments as regards the right to management of subject-land having vested in the Forest Department, the appellants cannot be allowed to thrive upon a non-existent hyper-technicality. 17. Thus when there is no discord between the Revenue and Forest Departments as regards the right to management of subject-land having vested in the Forest Department, the appellants cannot be allowed to thrive upon a non-existent hyper-technicality. 17. The appellant(s)' claim that they are lessee(s) over the subject-land is founded upon the receipts (Annexure P7 to P16). Interestingly, all the receipts bear the date of July 2001 (most of the receipts are dated 23.07.2001) whereby the appellant(s) claim to have deposited the lease amount from the year 1980-81 to 2001 in the State Bank of India through Treasury challans counter-signed by Tehsildar, Samana. These receipts have been apparently procured after initiation of eviction proceedings so as to create evidence in favour of the appellant(s). These receipts are suggestive of some collusion and connivance of the then Tehsildar who had also attempted to mislead the Collector by disputing the management of land by the Forest Department, contrary to the Government notifications or the stand taken by the State of Punjab before this Court. No reliance thus can be placed on such like documents. 18. Ordinarily, the State would not enter into an 'oral lease agreement'. The appellant(s) have failed to disclose as to which authority had executed any lease deed in their favour, and if so, what are the terms and conditions of such lease? They are conspicuously silent as to who had authorized the Tehsildar to countersign the Treasury Challans when they chose to deposit the alleged lease money of 20 years by singular receipts? 19. As against it, the appellant(s) themselves have attached the revenue record comprising jamabandi for the year 1996-97 (Annexure P2). As per the said revenue record, the subject land is unambiguously owned by the Punjab Government and appellants are in its possession "without rent because of illegal possession". The entries in the jamabandi generally reflect the status of eight harvesting seasons, namely, preceding four years (Rabi and Kharif two crops each year). It obviously shows that from the year 1990-91 onwards, the appellant(s) were in illegal possession without payment of any rent. The revenue record therefore falsifies the subsequent receipts procured by the appellant(s). How could Revenue authorities accept lease money from the appellant(s) when as per their own record the appellant(s) were in illegal possession? It obviously shows that from the year 1990-91 onwards, the appellant(s) were in illegal possession without payment of any rent. The revenue record therefore falsifies the subsequent receipts procured by the appellant(s). How could Revenue authorities accept lease money from the appellant(s) when as per their own record the appellant(s) were in illegal possession? In the light of the overwhelming evidence on record, we unhesitatingly hold that the appellant(s) are in unauthorized and illegal possession of the Government land hence the eviction proceedings under the 1973 Act were maintainable against them. 20. The half-hearted contention that the appellant(s) by virtue of their so-called status as illegal encroachers are entitled to purchase the Government land for peanuts must fall flat in the light of the firm view taken by this Court in CWP No. 22826 of 2012 (Ramesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.) decided on 20.12.2012 wherein this Court strongly deprecated the practice of State Government in selling the land to encroachers instead of getting the same vacated and then disposing of the same in a transparent manner through auction, if need be. 21. The subject-land, in any case, cannot be permitted to be sold or utilized for non-forestry purposes. The authorities have rightly urged that the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 apply with full force and it is imperative upon the Forest Department to maintain and utilize this land for forest or allied purposes only. 22. For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed.