Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pritam Singh vs Municipal Committee And Ors. on 29 March, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1995)110PLR424
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. These two petitions, viz. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1677 and 1678 of 1987 raise a common question regarding the validity of the orders of eviction of the respective petitioners under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). These can, therefore, be disposed of by one order. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to the facts as averred in C.W.P. No. 1677 of : 1987. These may be briefly noticed.
2. The Municipal Committee, Ronia moved an application under Sections 5 and 7 of the Act before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Sirsa for the petitioner's eviction from the land in his possession and for recovery of damages for use and occupation. This application was allowed vide order dated September 26, 1983; The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated January 29, 1987. Copies of these two orders have been placed on record as Annexures P.1 and P.2 respectively. The petitioner impugns these orders primarily on the ground that the learned authorities had erred in treating the Municipal Committee, Rania (Respondent No. l) as the owner of the land in dispute. It has been averred that 660 shares out of 793 vested in the Central Government while the remaining 133 shares vested in the Gram Panchayat, Rania; Mutations in this behalf were duly sanctioned. On this basis, it is maintained that the finding recorded by the authorities under the Act cannot be sustained. It is also claimed that the petitioner is in cultivating possession of the land as a "tenant Gair learned" on payment or annual rent at the rate of Rs. 80/- per acre under the Central Government and cannot thus be said to be in unlawful occupation of the land. On these premises, the petitioner prays for the quashing of the orders passed under the Act.
3. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent-committee, it has been inter-alia pointed out that the mutation dated January 3, 1984 which had been sanctioned in respect of 660/793 share of the land in dispute had been quashed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 532 of 1985 vide order dated August 27, 1985. As a result, Gram Panchayat Rania had been declared to be the owner of whole of the land. On this basis, the ground raised by the petitioner that the respondent Committee was not the owner of the land has been controverted. It has been further averred that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the land and has been rightly ordered to be evicted. According to the respondent, the land was given to the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat for a period of one year which had expired on March 31,1978 and thereafter his possession was unauthorised.
4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent-committee filed a civil misc. Application No. 6802 of 1994 for permission to file an additional affidavit so as to bring the complete facts on record. This application was allowed arid the additional affidavit filed by Mr. Om Parkash Sharma, the Administrator of the Municipal Committee Was directed to be placed on record. In this affidavit, it has been inter-alia pointed out that the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-Committee from interfering in the cultivating possession of the petitioner in respect of land measuring 82 kanal 6 marlas. The petitioner had averred that the suit land was exclusively owned by the Gram Panchayat and was let out to him in kharif 1975. In the meantime, custodian had become owner of 660/793 share out of the suit land and the Gram Panchayat was left with only 133/793 share. The share of the Gram Panchayat alone was transferred in favour of the Municipal Committee vide mutation dated April 3, 1979.A copy of the plaint dated May 16, 1979, as amended on October 30, 1979, has been produced as Annexure R/A-l with the affidavit. According to the respondent the suit was dismissed in default by the learned Trial Court on February 2, 1984. On this basis, it is claimed that the petitioner is estopped from contending that the committee was the owner of the land in dispute or that he had not accepted the lease of the land for one year from the Gram Panchayat. It has been further averred that land measuring 16 kanal 8 marlas was auctioned in favour of one Pritam Singh son of Ram Dhan, belonging to the harijan community for a period of one year from April 15, 1977 to April 15,1978. Another piece of land measuring 35 kanal 18 marlas was auctioned in favour of the petitioner for a period of one year from April 15, 1977 to April 15, 1978 at the rate of Rs. 1375/- per acre. By producing the relevant record, it has been pointed out that an excess amount of Rs. 670/- deposited by the petitioner on ac- count of lease money in respect of land measuring 35 kanal 18 marlas was adjusted towards the amount due from Pritam Singh son of Ram Dhan (Harijan). The respondent also points out that while only an area of 35 kanal 18 marlas had been auctioned and taken on lease by the petitioner, he had illegally occupied the land measuring 46 kanal 8 marlas auctioned in favour of Pritam Singh son of Ram Dhan, who belonged to the Harijan community. In order to clarify the position with regard to the ownership, it has been mentioned that by notification dated March 21, 1974, "whole of village Rania which was having a Gram Panchayat, was constituted into a Notified Area Committee under the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973." A copy of this notification has been produced as Annexure R/A-5. On the constitution of the Notified Area Committee, the Shamlat Deh land which had earlier vested in the Gram Panchayat came to vest in the Notified Area Committee. Some litigation en- sued between the Panchayat and the Committee. On October 10, 1978, the Panchayat passed a resolution for handing over the immovable property to the Notified Area Committee. A copy of this resolution has been produced as Annexure R/A-6.
5. A complete sequence of events regarding the transfer of the land in favour of Respondent No.l has also been given. It has been pointed out that initially in the Jamabandi for the year 1972-73, the Gram Panchayat was shown to be the owner. In pursuance to the decision of this Court in CWP 2409 of 1968, decided on May 15, 1973 along with various other cases, it was held that the evacuee interest of the muslims on their migration to Pakistan had to vest in the custodian and such land could not form part of the Shamlat Deh in the village. As a result, 660/793 share was transferred in favour of the Central Government. However, the decision was reversed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Gram Panchayat, Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh and Ors., A.I.R. 1985 1394. As a result, the whole land came to vest in the Gram Panchayat. Furthermore, vide notification dated March 21, 1974, the Governor of Haryana decared that the local area of village Rania shall be considered to be within the municipal limits. As a consequence, the land came under the Notified Area Committee constituted under the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. Vide notification dated July 25, 1987, the Notified Area Committee was converted into a municipal committee. On September 16, 1987, the status-quo ante was restored and a Gram Panchayat was again constituted. However, vide notification dated September 28, 1992, the Gram Panchayat, Rania was again abolished and the area came under the Municipal Committee, Rania. A copy of this notification has been produced as Annexure R/A According to the respondent, the land that originally vested in the Gram Panchayat had, thus, come to vest in the Municipal Committee and it was entitled to evict the petitioner. A copy of the application filed by the respondent before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Sirsa has been produced as Annexure R/A-11 and that of the reply Tiled by the petitioner as Annexure R/A- 12, It has been further pointed out that vide mutation No. 13166, the entire land has been entered in the name of Municipal Committee, Rania in place of Gram Panchayat, Rania.
6. The petitioner has filed a reply to this additional affidavit. It has been pointed out that the respondent-committee cannot make out a new case by producing additional documentary evidence. With regard to the suit, it has been mentioned that the petitioner had initially filed a Civil Suit No. 110 of 1978 for permanent injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat from interfering in his possession. This suit was decreed. The subsequent suit had been filed for the same purpose as the Committee claimed to have succeeded to the Gram panchayat and was interfering with the petitioner's possession. The averment that the suit had been dismissed for default has not been controverted. The averment in the additional affidavit with regard to the auction of the land in favour of Pritam Singh son of Ram Dhan (Harijan) in respect of 46 kanals 8 marlas of land has been described as irrelevant. The other averments have been controverted. The contents of the reply to the additional affidavit have not been verified by the petitioner or anybody else.
7. The Gram Panchayat had filed an application for being impleaded as a respondent. The application was allowed. It has been impleaded as Respondent No. 8. It has filed a separate written statement claiming to be the owner of the property. However, no one appeared on behalf of the Gram Panchayat to support the claim made in the written statement.
8. Counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. Ashwani Chopra, learned counsel has contended that the petitioner is a tenant on the land. He cannot, therefore, be considered to be an unauthorised occupant. Accordingly, the order of eviction could not have been passed against him. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by Mr. R.S. Mittal, learned counsel for respondent-Committee.
9. An extract from the register of agreement/lease has been produced as Annexure R/A-2 with the additional affidavit .A perusal thereof shows that the auction proceedings were held on April 15, 1977. Plot Nos. 2 and 2A measuring 24 kanals and 22 kanals 8 marlas respectively were auctioned. The bid given by Pritam Singh son of Ram Dhan in respect of these two plots had been accepted. It is thus clear that the land measuring 46 kanals 8 marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. 110/3,4,5,6,7,8 was never given to the petitioner on lease or otherwise. Furthermore, on the same day, auction for the lease of plot no. 3 comprised in Khasra No. 110/11,12,13,14,15/1 measuring 35 kanals 18 marlas was also held. The petitioner's bid was @ Rs. 1375/- p.a. It was the highest. It was accepted. It is thus clear that even though the petitioners bid had been accepted only in respect of land measuring 35 kanals 18 marlas, he wrongly occupied even the land comprised in Plot Nos. 2 and 2A measuring 46 kanals 8 marlas. Still further, it is the categorical case of the respondents that the lease rights had been auctioned only for a period of one year from April 15,1977 to April 15, 1978. This has not been controverted by the petitioner by filing any replication. As such, the lease had expired on April 15, 1978. Thereafter, the petitioner's occupation of the land in dispute was wholly illegal and un- authorised. Mr. Chopra, however, submitted that the petitioner had paid rent even subsequently. In support of this submission, he relied on the three receipts copies of which have been appended with reply filed by the petitioner in C.W. Application No. 4451 of 1992. This application had been filed by the Gram Panchayat for vaca- tion of the stay order dated March 21, 1987 passed in favour of the petitioner. All the three documents are copies of challan in Form No. 32-A showing deposit of Rs. 25,000/- each by the petitioner. These are also shown to bear the seal of Naib Tehsildar (Sales), Sirsa. None of these documents shows the acceptance of any rent by the real owner of the property. Consequently, these documents do not show that any rent had been accepted by the owner of the property after April 15,1978. In fact, no evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to show that the respondent-committee of the Gram Panchayat Rania had ever accepted any rent from him after April 15,1978. Consequently, the contention of Mr. Chopra that the petitioner had continued to be a tenant even after April 15,1978 cannot be accepted. Faced with this situation, Mr. Chopra, referred to the entry in the Jamabandi to contend that the petitioner is recorded as a tenant. Learned counsel referred to the decision in Bihari v. The State of Haryana, 1987 Punjab Law Reports and Statutes 563 and Balkar Singh and Anr. v. Commissioner Jullundur Division, Jullundur and Anr., 1989 P.L.J. 101 in support of his submission. The first of those cases is clearly distinguishable on facts. The claim of the petitioner was that he was in possession of the property for a period of 40-50 years prior to the initiation of the proceedings by the Collector as a tenant and as owner since 1958 on account of the land having been sold in his Labour by the owners. The Hon'ble Judge had observed that "it has nowhere been recorded by any of these authorities that the petitioner entered into possession of this property after it has come to vest in the Government. In the absence of such a findings the petitioner obviously cannot be held to be an unauthorised occupant of the land in question ." Such is not the position in the present case. In the case of Balkar Singh (supra), it was found that initially, the tenancy had been created for the year 1969-70, but the petitioner had continued to remain in occupation of the land and the respondents had been accepting rent till the year 1980. In this situation, it was held by their Lordships that "where a lessor remained in possession of immovable property leased even after the expiry of the period of the lease and the lessor accepts rent from him or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession, he would become by reason of the provisions of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property. Act a tenant holding over." In the present Case, the situation is clearly different in as much as there is no evidence that the Panchayat, which was the original owner or the Committee which stepped into the shoes of the Panchayat had ever accepted the rent. Consequently, even this case is of no assistance to the learned counsel for the petitioner. As for the entry in the Jamabandi for the year 1982-83, it may be mentioned that the proceedings under the Act having been initiated against the petitioner on March 2,1982, the tenancy even if any, stood terminated.
10. There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioner had admittedly entered into the possession of the land as a lessee for a period of one year which expired on April 15, 1978. He has thereafter remained in possession by virtue of the litigation initiated by him Without paying any rent to the lessor. There is no equity in favour of the petitioner. Such a person is not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
11. No other point was urged.
12. Accordingly, there is no merit in these petitions. These are dismissed with costs, which are assessed at Rs. 5,000/-per case.