Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjodh Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 12 May, 2011
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.825 of 2011(O&M)
Date of decision: 12.05.2011
Ranjodh Singh
.....Appellant
versus
State of Punjab and another
......Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Present: Mr. H.R.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
C.M. No.2212 and 2213 of 2011 In view of reasons mentioned in these applications, which are accompanied by affidavits, the same are allowed and 8 days delay in re- filing and 45 days delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. LPA No.825 of 2011 This appeal has been filed against judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 24.12.2010, dismissing CWP No.8137 of 2007, filed by the appellant.
As per record, in that writ petition, appellant had laid challenge to an order dated 8.5.2006, passed by the Collector, ordering his ejectment from the land in dispute, measuring 10 acres. Further challenge was made to an order passed by the appellate authority (Commissioner) dated 7.3.2007, dismissing an appeal filed by the appellant. LPA No.825 of 2011(O&M) 2
It is apparent from the record that the land is a part of the reserved forest. In the year 1976, the irrigation department transferred it to the forest department and as per stipulation made in letter dated 1.12.1971, this land cannot be used for any other purpose except for forestation. The forest department filed an application for ejectment of the appellant from the land in dispute, stating that he was sitting in an authorized possession of the above said land. Upon notice, the appellant took up a stand that he was a lessee. To say so, reference was made to some entries made in the revenue record, however, at no time, any receipt was produced on record to show that rent was ever paid either to the irrigation department or the forest department. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Collector reads thus:-
"After hearing the arguments of both the parties and going through the record, it is found that the land described in the petition is owned by State Govt. Earlier it was under
Irrigation Department and in year 1975 it is transferred in favour of Forest Department. It is correct that the father of respondent was cultivating this land in dispute as tenant and he was lessee of Irrigation Department. After his death in the year 1991, Ranjodh Singh respondent is in illegal possession of this land. The Forest Department has neither given this land to respondent on lease / rent, nor the respondent has ever paid any rent to the Govt. That is why the respondent is in illegal possession. It is correct that earlier in the year 1975, a case was filed under the Punjab Public Premises (Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 which was decided in favour of respondent on 28.5.74 by Sh.S.S.Grewal, PCS Collector, Division, Patiala. LPA No.825 of 2011(O&M) 3 It was admitted in that Baldev Singh was tenant of Irrigation Deptt. But in the year 1976 this land has been transferred from Irrigation Department to Forest Department. Apart of it, Baldev Singh has also died in 1991. After death of Baldev Singh, the respondent neither got the lease deed executed in his name, nor he has been paid any rent to the Govt. I am agree with the content of petitioner that the case under Punjab Public Premises (Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 are of summary nature. In these cases, resjudicata does not apply. So, from the above said discussion, it is clear that the land in dispute is owned by Punjab Govt. Forest Deptt. and the respondent has illegally possessed it. Therefore, I pass an order for eviction of the respondent from the land in dispute. If the respondent do not vacate this land within 30 days, then the petitioner can take the police help to take possession of the land in dispute. The file be consigned to record room after due compliance"
The learned Single Judge took notice of the findings given by the Courts below and observed that the appellant was in unauthorized occupation of the land in dispute. It has also come on record that even as per admitted case, the appellant's father had entered into possession of the land for one year only, as a lessee. On expiry of that period, he did not pay any amount of rent to any authority and the lease period was also not extended. If that is so, possession thereafter was unauthorized. The learned single Judge when dismissing the writ petition, has observed as under:-
"The petitioner, in essence, claims that as his father was a tenant of the Irrigation Department, as held in the order dated 28.5.1975, passed by the Collector, Sub Division, LPA No.825 of 2011(O&M) 4 Patiala, the order operates as resjudicata. In support of the argument that Baldev Singh was a tenant, the petitioner places reliance upon jamabandis for the years 1968-69, 1978-79 and 1988-89 which record the ownership of the Provincial Government but the possession of Baldev Singh son of Puran Singh (father of the petitioner) as "Gair Marusi" on payment of 'Chakota' of Rs.150/- per annum.
The land in dispute, admittedly, belongs to the state Government and was declared a protected forest, vide notification no.3059-FT-58/1949, dated 24.6.1958. The land was originally under the care of the Irrigation Department but was transferred to the Forest Department vide letter No.8700- 03, dated 1.12.1973, Annexure R-1. The Irrigation Department, therefore, stood divested of all control over the land in dispute as it vested in the Forest Department. The petitioner has not produced any evidence to establish that the land in dispute is not a part of the land transferred by the Irrigation Department to the Forest Department. The Irrigation Department, therefore, had no right to file an application for eviction of Baldev Singh on 20.9.1974, as the land stood transferred to the Forest Department in the year 1973. The order dated 28.5.1975, passed by the Collector, holding that Baldev Singh is a tenant cannot, operate as resjudicata as the Forest Department was not a party to this order. Even otherwise, proceedings under the act are summary in nature and any finding recorded with respect to title, tenancy etc. does not operate as resjudicata. LPA No.825 of 2011(O&M) 5
It is, however, true that the petitioner's father Baldev Singh is recorded as "Gair Marusi" on payment of 'Chakota' at the rate of Rs.150/- per annum, in the jamabandis for the year 1968-69, 1973-74, 1978-89 and 1988-89. A presumption of truth attaches to any entry in a jamabandi. An entry in a jamabandi does not by itself confer any right or title till such time as the entry is not linked to the source of the right or title. The respondents have pleaded that the land was given to Baldev Singh on lease for a period of one year as he was the highest bidder in an open auction. This averment has neither been denied nor controverted by way of a counter affidavit or a rejoinder and must, therefore, be accepted as correct. The lease of land to Baldev Singh for a period of one year on Chakota of Rs.150/- per annum does not confer the status of a tenant as upon expiry of this period of one year, Baldev Singh became an unauthorized occupant. The entries in the jamabandis, are not supported by any lease deed or order inducting Baldev Singh as a tenant. The petitioner who claims his rights as a tenant, from his father Baldev Singh, has not produced any lease deed or rent note and in support of the revenue entries and was, therefore, rightly held to be an unauthorized occupant of forest land.
Before parting with the judgment, it would be necessary to emphasise that the land in dispute was declared forest land in the year 1958 and was apparently leased out by the Irrigation Department, in ignorance of the notification issued in the year 1958. Forest Land, what ever be its nature, cannot LPA No.825 of 2011(O&M) 6 be diverted to any other use except in accordance with procedure prescribed by law. The possession by the petitioner of forest land and its subsequent conversion to cultivation would not exclude the land in dispute from a forest."
We feel that the order passed is perfectly justified and is based on record. Even before us, the appellant has failed to show any receipt, indicating payment of lease amount to any authority. The appellant is sitting on 10 acres of land of the government unauthorizedly without payment of rent and further this land cannot be used being a reserved forest for any other purpose except for plantation of the trees.
Dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh)
Judge
12.05.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg)
gk Judge