Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lachhman Dass vs The State Of Punjab And Anr. on 1 June, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1993)104PLR396
JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J.
1. Petitioner Lachhman Dass seeks issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order dated 4-3-1985 (Annexure P-4) passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Sangrur, vide which damages twenty times of yearly lease money were imposed upon him in proceedings instituted under Rule 20 A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter to be refrred as 1964 Rules)
2. Brief facts of the case, as are appelled out from the impunged order, reveal that an application was filed on behalf of the Gram Panchayat of Village Kakra, district Sangrur, against the petitioner wherein it was stated that land measuring 34-bigbas 11-biswas was taken on lease by the petitioner through auction for a period of five years commencing 1978- 79 and ending 1982-83 for Rs. 1800/- per year. The term of lease expired in 1983, but the petitioner did not part with possession of the land, thus, constraining the Gram Panchayat to file an application under Rule 20-A of the 1964 Rules, demanding damages 20 times of lease money for unauthorised occupation of the petitioner. The application aforesaid was contested and in the reply filed by the petitioner, it was, inter alia, pleaded that possession of the entire land, subject matter of lease, was not handed over as some area was taken possession of only after two years after commencement of the lease also that material improvment had been made in the land in dispute as also that the land was not shamilat deh. The District Development and Panchayat Officer, Sangrur before whom the application came up for final decision after recording evidence of the parties, ordered that the petitioner should pay damages, twenty times of the lease money, as he was in unauthorised occupation of the land in dispute. It is against this order, as mentioned earlier, that the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The basic plea of the petitioner, as is made out from the pleadings of the petitioner, is that after imposing proprato cut on the proprietors and earmarking the land so parted with by the proprietors for various village common purposes, the land in dispute was left out as surplus area, i.e. Bachat land. With a view to substantiate the plea aforesaid, Khatauni Paimaish that came into being at the time of consolidation proceedings has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. The land, as is described in Annexure P-1, i.e. Khatauni Paimaish, it is pleaded could not be shamilat deh as defined under Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, as the same was owned by the proprietors of the village in accordance with their shares. It is for that precise reason that in the revenue records the land was shown to be owned by the proprietors of the village (Jumla Mushtarka Malkan-Hasab Rasad Khewat) and in the column of possession of the revenue records the same was described to be occupied by the proprietors. Jamabandi for the year 1958-59 has been annexed to demonstrate the entries of the revenue record in the manner, indicated above. It is on the strength of revenue record, which depicts the land to be owned by the proprietors of the village that it is pleaded that the same was not shamilat deh and as such proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Rules 20-A of 1964 Rules were wholly illegal and so is the order Annexure P-4.
4. The cause of the petitioner has been opposed and in the written statement filed by the respondent-gram Panchayat, it has been pleaded that petitioner had taken the land in open auction vide resolution dated 10-5-1978 on lease from Gram Panchayat, Kakra, and, therefore, he is estopped from denying the title of the gram Panchayat. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner is not proprietor of the village and that the documents now annexed with the petition were not placed before the Tribunal, deciding the application under Rule 20 A of 1964 Rules filed by the gram panchayat as also that the land described in Khatauni paimaish (Annexure P-1) was not the same as was described in verious Jamabandis and was, this not the disputed land. It has been further pleaded that the disputed land alongwith some other land was sanctioned in favour of the gram panchayat vide Mutation No. 2520 dated 5-2-1964 and the same thereafter was always recorded in every Jamabandi to be owned by the gram panchayat. The Mutation and the entries in the revenue records that came to be made were never challenged at any stage by any one either before the Revenue or the Civil Court. It is further stated that ever since 1964 the gram panchayat has been continuing as owner of the land in dispute and the same is in control and management thereof. The land in question was taken by the petitioner on lease on 10 5-1978 for five years through a resolution passed by the gram-panchayat in that behalf at yearly basis @ Rs. 1800/-per annum. The pleas of the petitioner that the entire land was not given to him and that the gram panchayat continued to be in possession of some part of the land has been denied. On the aforestated defence, the obvious prayer of the gram panchayat is to dismiss the petition.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the gram panchayat and going through records of the case, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is not disputed that the petitioner had, in fact, obtained possession of the land in dispute from the gram-panchayat on lease for a period of rive years and for a consolidated amount of Rs. 1800/per year. It is also not disputed that the period of lease had expired and thereafter only that the application under Section 20 A of 1964 Rules was filed. A reading of the impugned order (Annexure P-4) would show that record of the consolidation was never relied upon by the petitioner even though it was stated that the land was not shamilat deh. There were hardly any argument addressed before the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Sangrur, projecting that the land was not shamilat deh as it was not covered under Section 2 (g) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act. It would, thus, be seen that there was no cogent defence projected by the petitioner before the District Development and Panchayat Officer and in particular the one, which is sought to be made out now. It is settled law that the order challenged in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India can be set aside or modified on the material that was available before the Tribunal. In other words, illegality and impropriety of the order has to be seen on the basis of material on which the Court of Tribunal decided the matter. That apart, it is not open to a tenant to challenge the title of his landlord unless he surrenders the possession. Admittedly, the petitioner is continuing in possession. The Supreme Court in Atyam Veerraju v. Pechetti Venkanna, A. I. R. 1966 S. C. 629. held that a tenant cannot deny title of the landlord nor can be prescribe title in himself, The privy council in Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh, A. I. R. 1915 P. C. 96, held that "A tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his landlord's title, however, defective it may be, so long as he has not openly restored possession by surrender to his landlord". It is, thus, settled law that a tenant cannot deny title of his lardlord. The petitioner being an admitted tenant having been inducted into the land in dispute by a resolution passed by the gram panchayat cannot successfully urge that the land in dispute is not shamilat deh and does not vest in the Gram Panchayat and to the contrary it vests in the proprietory body of the village.
6. In so far as imposition of penalty, i.e. twenty times of lease money, is concerned, nothing has been mentioned in the petition to suggest that the same was excessive or disproportionate to the advantage obtained by the petitioner.
For the reasons recorded above, this petition, which lacks merit, is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand).