Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2606 (PNJ)

Budh Ram v. Gram Panchayat Pirimandori

2017-10-31

SUDHIR MITTAL, SURYA KANT

body2017
JUDGMENT Mr. Surya Kant, J.: (Oral) - The petitioners seek quashing of the orders dated 28.08.2012and 15.07.2014 passed by the Collector, Fatehabad and Commissioner,Hisar Division, Hisar, respectively, whereby the suit for declaration filed bythem and proforma-respondents, under Section 13-A of the Punjab VillageCommon Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, the 1961 Act’) asapplicable to the State of Haryana, was dismissed and appeal against thesaid order also stands rejected. 2. The petitioners are residents of village Pirimandori, Tehsil andDistrict Fatehabad. They filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership quathe land measuring 43 kanal 6 marlas fully detailed in the head-note of thewrit petition, claiming that they are in its possession for the last 40 years,hence, they are entitled to acquire ownership rights qua the same. It wasalso their case that the Gram Panchayat has no concern whatsoever with thesubject-land in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Jai Singh and others versus State of Haryana, (2003) 2 RCR (Civil) 578. 3. The Appellate Authority rejected the claim of the petitionersobserving as follows:- .......6. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, it isundisputed that jamabandi shows gram panchayat as theowner of the suit land while appellants are gair maurusitenants. Although appellants claimed that their tenancy issimilar to occupancy tenants. But, for occupancy tenancy, therevenue term is maurusi and gair maurusi simply meansthose tenants who are not occupancy right tenants. Theconversion from normal tenants to tenants having occupancyrights is not provided under the Punjab Village CommonLands (Regulation) Act, 1961. So, any equality or parallelbetween occupancy tenants and petitioner is simply toofarfetched from relating or law and is ruled out. 7. Further, jamabandi entries are against the appellants.The onus of proving their title was on the appellants itselfbut they could not produce any evidence to prove that thesuit land is bachat land and it is not reserved for commonpurposes. 8. Further, I have taken judicial notice of the fact thatappellants have taken two conflicting stands before theCollector’s Court and this Court also. On the one hand, theyare saying that they are tenants. But, they are also disputingthe title of land owner which is gram panchayat. But, it iswell settled principle of law that any tenant cannot disputethe title of land owner. On the one hand, theyare saying that they are tenants. But, they are also disputingthe title of land owner which is gram panchayat. But, it iswell settled principle of law that any tenant cannot disputethe title of land owner. Section 116 of the Indian EvidenceAct clearly shows that no tenant of immovable property,xxxxxxxxxxx shall during the continuation of tenancy bepermitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had at thebeginning of the tenancy a title to such immovableproperty.......” 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at aconsiderable length and gone through the records. 5. Firstly, in our considered view, the writ petition is liable to bedismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The impugned order waspassed by the Appellate Authority on 15.07.2014 which the petitioners havechosen to challenge it after almost three years. A writ of certiorari canordinarily be sought within six months but in any case not beyond one year,save where the petitioners explain the delay to the entire satisfaction of theCourt. In this case there is not even a whisper as to what prevented thepetitioners to approach this Court within a reasonable time. 6. Regardless thereto, we have heard learned counsel for thepetitioners on merits as well. 7. A perusal of the revenue record comprising jamabandies for theyears 1960-61 onwards reveals that the subject land was under theownership of mustarka malkan and was under the cultivating possession ofmakbuja malkan, namely, the entire proprietary body of the village. Itsimply suggests that the land in question was taken out by imposing a cut onpro-rata basis on the proprietors’ land-holdings at the time of consolidationand it was to be kept in a common pool for the common purposes of thevillage. The petitioners are recorded as gair maurusi tenants qua some ofthe khasra numbers which clearly suggests that they were tenants on Will onpayment of a part of batai and in possession as co-sharers of proprietors ofthe village. The ownership of the land in question was mutated in favour ofthe Gram Panchayat in the year 1992. 8. A Full Bench of this Court in Jai Singh and others’ case(supra)has unequivocally held that the ‘management’ and ‘control’ of theland taken out from the proprietors of the village on pro-rata basis shallvest in the Gram Panchayat if such land has been reserved or earmarked forcommon purposes irrespective of the fact whether it is used for commonpurposes or not. 8. A Full Bench of this Court in Jai Singh and others’ case(supra)has unequivocally held that the ‘management’ and ‘control’ of theland taken out from the proprietors of the village on pro-rata basis shallvest in the Gram Panchayat if such land has been reserved or earmarked forcommon purposes irrespective of the fact whether it is used for commonpurposes or not. It is a matter of common knowledge that the entire landear-marked or reserved for common purposes cannot be utilized in one go.A part of the land is also kept for future requirements like, school, hospital,cremation ground, play-ground, streets, gau charand etc. etc. Till such time,the land is actually put to use for a common purpose, even if it is cultivatedby a tenant on Will, such tenant cannot and does not acquire ownershiprights. 9. Still further, the petitioners having accepted their tenancy underthe Gram Panchayat since the year 1992 onwards, cannot turn around andquestion that title of the Gram Panchayat. 10. That apart, in a petition under Section 13-A of the 1961 Act,whereunder declaration of title can be sought in a dispute between theproprietors of the village and the Gram Panchayat, onus was on thepetitioners to establish their ownership qua the land in question. Theycannot claim ownership merely by contending that land being mustarkamalkan does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Suffice it to refer to Section23-A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention ofFragmentation) Act, 1948 whereunder ‘management’ and ‘control’ of suchlands statutorily vests in the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners thus havemiserably failed to make out a case of ownership qua the subject land. No case to interfere with the orders under challenge is madeout. Dismissed.