Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dropati Kaur & Another vs Joint Director Panchayats on 27 November, 2013
Bench: Jasbir Singh, G.S.Sandhawalia
CWP No.5600 of 1989 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.5600 of 1989
Date of decision:27.11.2013
Dropati Kaur & another .....Petitioners
Versus
Joint Director Panchayats, Punjab & another ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr.Sarjit Singh, Sr.Advocate
with Ms.Rachna Salathia, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.B.S.Cheema, DAG, Punjab.
*****
G.S.Sandhawalia J.
1. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03.02.1989 (Annexure P3) whereby respondent No.1 accepted the appeal of the Gram Panchayat and ordered ejectment of the petitioners from the land in dispute. Respondent No.2-Gram Panchayat filed proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, the 'Act') against the petitioners and 4 others, for eviction from the land measuring 17 kanals 8 marlas falling in khasra No.382//29 in village Sunam, District Sangrur.
2. The case of the Gram Panchayat was that the said persons were in occupation as gair marusi tenants and their possession was unauthorised and illegal. The defence taken by the present petitioners alongwith the other persons was that the Gram Panchayat did not exist any more and they were in possession since long and are still in possession. Evidence was adduced by the Gram Panchayat in the form of revenue record being the jamabandi for the year 1974- 75 and 1979-80. The petitioners, on the other hand, produced oral evidence to contend that the land in question was in possession of predecessor-in-interest, Sailesh Ranjan 2013.12.18 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.5600 of 1989 -2- Arjan Singh for the last 30 years and after his death, his sons were in possession. Construction had been raised in the said land which was within the municipal limits and Panchayat was not the owner of the land. The Clerk of the Municipal Committee was also examined to show that the limit of the Municipal Committee had been extended and the land fell within the Municipal Committee, Sunam. The Collector came to the conclusion that the Gram Panchayat was not owner of the land in dispute as it fell within the Municipal Committee and since the respondents had their houses in the land in dispute since long, dismissed the application filed by the Gram Panchayat on 09.01.1984. Relevant portion of the order read as under:
"After hearing the counsel for the parties and after examining the evidence, I am of the opinion that the Gram Panchayat is not the owner of the land in dispute, and in fact this land falls within the limit of Municipal Committee Sunam. Besides this the respondents have their houses on the land in dispute since long. I agree with the contentions of the counsel for the respondents. So I dismiss the application of the applicant.
Order announced dated 9.1.1984."
3. The appellate authority, namely, the Commissioner examined the issue with greater detail and noticed that the reasoning given by the Court below was against the record. Reference was made to sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (for short, the '1952 Act') to hold that only if whole of the Sabha area of the Gram panchayat was included in the urban area, then the existence of the Gram Panchayat would cease and the liability would vest with the Municipal Committee. It was noticed that khasra Nos.2 and 29 of the Gram Panchayat were under the Municipal Committee and Panchayat continued to exist and was, thus, the owner of the land. Regarding the second argument, it was noticed that the jamabandies were of the year 1974-75 and 1979-80 and possession of the persons were not proved before 26.01.1950, to Sailesh Ranjan 2013.12.18 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.5600 of 1989 -3- bring the land within the exception clauses provided under Section 2(g) of the Act. Accordingly, the eviction order was passed, which is now, subject matter of challenge.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has very vehemently argued that prima facie the case of title was raised and the authorities below should have decided the same rather than only ordering ejectment and accordingly, pleaded that the matter should be sent back to the authorities for deciding the question of title.
5. However, we are not impressed with the argument raised by Learned Senior Counsel. Admittedly, the defence taken by the present petitioners was only that the Gram Panchyat did not exist and that their possession was of long and therefore, they were entitled to continue in possession. The said defence was wrongly accepted by the Collector, as noticed above, without even examining in detail the provisions of the 1952 Act. Merely by extension of the limits of Municipal Committee, the petitioners could not avoid ejectment on the ground that the ownership, now, lay with the Municipal Committee and that the Panchayat was no longer the owner. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the 1952 Act reads as under:
"Section 4 sub-section (3). If whole of the Sabha area is included in an urban estate to which the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 area applicable or in a City, municipality cantonment or notified area under any law for the time being in force, the Sabha and the Gram Panchayat for that area shall cease to exist and the assets and liabilities of the Gram Panchayat shall be disposed of in the prescribed manner."
6. The said provision has been rightly referred to by the appellate authority who has come to the conclusion that some portion of the land of the Panchayat may have come under the Municipal Committee but the Panchyat continued to exist and it was only in case the whole of the Sabha area was Sailesh Ranjan 2013.12.18 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.5600 of 1989 -4- included then the possession of Gram Panchayat would cease to exist and the assets and liabilities would have to be disposed of within a prescribed manner.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to dislodge this legal argument, relied upon by the appellate authority, in any manner, apart from taking the plea that since now, the land falls within the municipal limit and there is construction raised on it, the petitioners should not be ejected. The said reasoning of the appellate authority is also supported by legal precedent of this Court. A Single Bench of this Court in Gram Panchayat Nasrali Vs. The State of Punjab & others 1984 PLJ 113 held that by mere inclusion of part of the Sabha area within the Municipal Committee, the land possessed by the private individuals or other juridical persons does not come to vest in the Municipal Committee and the ownership would not be transferred to the Municipal Committee, as such. The said view was approved by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajinder Singh Sarpanch Vs. Deputy Commissioner 1985 (2) PLR 555 by placing reliance upon Section 4(3) of the 1952 Act to hold that the Gram Sabha would not cease to be the owner of the property on account of partial inclusion of its area in the Municipal limits. Relevant observations read as under:
"5. From a perusal of para 7 of the written statement reproduced above it is clear that approximately only 90 per cent of the Sabha area of the Gram Panchayat has been included in the Municipal Committee. Gurgaon, whereas perusal of S. 4(3) of the Act would show that the Gram Panchayat shall cease to exist only when whole of the Gram Sabha area is included in the Municipal Committee.
6. In case of Gram Panchayat Nasrali v. State of Punjab, 1984 Pun LJ 113, the provisions of S. 4(3) of the Act fell for consideration, which provisions are in pari materia with sub-section(3) of S. 4 of the Act as applicable to Haryana. It was held by the learned Judge that the condition precedent for the application of sub-section(3) of Sailesh Ranjan 2013.12.18 12:47 S. 4 of the Act was the inclusion of the whole of the Sabha area I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.5600 of 1989 -5- within the Municipal limits and that by partial inclusion of Sabha area within Municipal limits, the Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat would not cease to be juristic persons and thus the property vesting in the Gram Panchayat, would continue to vest in the Gram Panchayat and not in the Municipal Committee. The properties remain the properties of the Gram Panchayat which owned and could not vest in the Municipal Committee."
Another Division Bench of this Court in Mrs. Renuka Sekhon Vs. State of Punjab & others 1990 (2) PLR 58 held that the Gram Panchayat does not cease to be juridical person by inclusion of part of the property within the urban area of the Municipal limit. In similar circumstances, another Single Judge held to the same effect in Nahar Singh Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab 1993 (3) PLR 188.
8. However, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had title over the property and therefore, being in unauthorised occupation, cannot continue due to long possession. As noticed earlier, the revenue records also showed that the possession was from 1974-75 and thus, the petitioners would not fall within the protective ambit of the exceptions provided under Section 2(g) of the Act to get any relief and contend that the land did not vest with the Gram Panchayat.
9. Resultantly, we are of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the appellate authority, ejecting the petitioners. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
(G.S.SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
27.11.2013 (JASBIR SINGH)
sailesh JUDGE
Sailesh Ranjan
2013.12.18 12:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document