Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajit Singh vs Joint Development Commissioner on 15 March, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2005)141PLR50, AIR 2005 (NOC) 451 (P&H), 2005 A I H C 2562, (2005) 2 CIVILCOURTC 827, (2005) 2 LANDLR 89, (2005) 3 PUN LR 50, (2005) 2 RECCIVR 678
Author: Rajive Bhalla
Bench: J.S. Narang, Rajive Bhalla
JUDGMENT Rajive Bhalla, J.
1. The petitioner, by way of the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, prays for the quashing of the order, passed by the Divisional Deputy Director-cum-Collector, Amritsar dated 13.3.2003 (Annexure P-6), and the order, passed by the Joint Development Commissioner, dated 8.12.2004 (Annexure P-7).
2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 claiming therein that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 37//11(7-12), 20/1(6-7), 387/1(7-8) and 25/2(7-8) was in the ownership of Mushtarka Malkan Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewatdar and, therefore, could not vest in the Gram Panchayat, Mutation No. 2458 was sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat in the year 1967, on the basis of letter No. 1096-1105, dated 4.5.1965, issued by the Government. It is contended that the revenue record shows the consistent possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute, and, therefore, the Gram Panchayat could not have been held to be the owner of the land in dispute.
3. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings, as also the impugned orders.
4. The Divisional Deputy Director-cum-Collector, Amritsar, as also the Joint Development Commissioner have returned findings of fact that the petitioner was a tenant, on payment of rent, the landlord being the Gram Panchayat. These findings of fact are supported by the jamabandis for the years 1971-72 (Annexure P-4), 1976-77, 1981-82, 1986-87, 1991-92 and 1996-97 (Annexure P-5 collectively). In column No. 4, the Gram Panchayat is recorded as the owner of the land, in the column of cultivation, the petitioner is shown as "Gair Marusi", column No. 9 of these jamabandis contains an entry of rent @ Rs. 550/- per annum. These entries are supported by the resolutions of the Gram Panchayat, exhibited as Annexures R-11 to R-21 before the Collector, leasing out land to the petitioner. Receipts evidencing the payment of rent have also been tendered and exhibited before the Collector. The entries in the jamabandis read with the resolutions of the Gram Panchayats, as also the receipts lead to only one incontrovertible conclusions, namely, that the petitioner was a tenant over the land in dispute.
5. The findings of fact regarding the petitioner's tenancy call for no interference. A half hearted attempt has been made by the petitioner to rebut the aforementioned entries, the resolutions and the receipts by stating that the rent was got deposited from the petitioner's sons under a mistake of fact. We are not impressed by this argument. A presumption of truth attaches to the revenue record, more-so, when the revenue record is supported by the resolution of the Gram Panchayat and fortified by the receipts regarding payment of rent, which payment has not been denied.
6. A tenant cannot deny the title of his landlord. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 estops the tenant or a person claiming through such tenant, from denying the landlord's title to such immovable property. A tenant cannot be permitted to change the nature of his possession.
7. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court reported as Gram Panchayat, Village Bhedpura v. The Additional Director, Consolidation and Ors., (1997-1)115 P.L.R. 391, Nat Singh v. Joint Director, Panchayat, (1993-3)105 P.L.R. 729 and Gurnam Singh v. Gram Panchayat, Village Mangoli and Ors., (1988-2)92 P.L.R. 572.
8. In Gram Panchayat, Village Bhedpura's case (supra), the controversy was with respect to re-distribution of bachat land and the powers of the Director, Consolidation. Reference to Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act was made in the context of the facts of the aforementioned case. Even otherwise, a perusal of the aforementioned judgment reveals that the petitioner therein had been able to establish the lease money was being paid under an error of fact and it was in that context that this Court waived the doctrine of estoppel, enshrined in Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. No such evidence is forthcoming in the present case.
9. There can be no quarrel with the proposition set down in Nat Singh's case (supra) that the Collector was required to determine the question of title after framing issues and recording evidence. However, mere non-framing of issues would not render the order void. The parties were conscious of the lis pending between them. Both parties led evidence for and against the respective contentions and were, therefore, alive to the controversy. The non-framing of issues, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be invoked to set aside the impugned orders.
10. The last judgment, cited by counsel for the petitioner, namely, Gurnam Singh (supra), has no relevance to the present controversy, as the said judgment in totally inapplicable to the present case.
11. Before parting with this judgment, it would be appropriate to notice two judgments of this Court reported as Gram Panchayat, Billpur v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, (1998-2)119 P.L.R. 631, wherein, while relying upon another judgment of this Court reported as Inder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr., 1987 P.L.J. 614, it has been held that where a person has entered possession as a successful bidder in the auction, he is not entitled to challenge the status of the Gram Panchayat, in view of the provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, as he was a tenant under the Gram Panchayat and had taken possession from it.
12. In view of what has been stated above, and more particularly, the fact that the petitioner was a tenant over the land in dispute, depositing rent regularly, tenancy had been created pursuant to the resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat, we find no merit in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed in limine.