Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gujjar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 28 April, 2014
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
CWP No.13005 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.13005 of 2008
Date of decision:28.4.2014
Gujjar Singh ....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
Present: Mr. M.K. Sajjan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
******
HEMANT GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 14.07.1999 passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer exercising the powers of the Collector on an application in terms of The Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery, Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') in respect of the land measuring 107 Kanals 19 Marlas. The appeal against the said order stands dismissed on 05.06.2008.
Still aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. A perusal of the order passed by the Collector shows that Gram Panchayat approached the Collector asserting that the land in question was leased by the Panchayat in the year 1996-97 but the same was occupied by the petitioner unauthorizedly. The stand of the present petitioner in the written statement is that the land belongs to Jumla Mushtarka Malkan and, therefore, Gram Panchayat has no concern with the land. Diwakar Gulati 2014.05.01 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.13005 of 2008 2
The learned Collector found from the Jamabandi that Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land. The land was leased out for the year 1996-97 but due to the possession of the present petitioner, the Panchayat did not receive lease money for the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 and that the petitioner has failed to bring any document regarding his legal possession.
In appeal, the learned Commissioner found that in the Jamabandi for the year 1996-97, Panchayat is recorded as owner, the land being Jumla Mushtarka Malkan. It was held that such land cannot be partitioned in terms of Section 42-A inserted in the year 2007 in the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. In view of the said fact, the land was found to be reserved for common purposes during consolidation proceedings and therefore, the petitioner was not found to be possessing right, title or interest to continue with the possession.
Learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court has argued that question of title is pending adjudication before the Collector in terms of Section 11 of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and therefore, the summary jurisdiction under the Act could not be have been invoked so as to evict the present petitioner. A copy of the petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 has been appended with the writ petition as Annexure P-13. Para 1 of such petition reads as under:-
"1. That land measuring 107 kanal 19 marla as detailed in the heading of the application was left for common purpose of the village after pro-rata cut from the holdings of the propertiors of the village during the consolidation proceedings and was shown in the name of Jumla Mushtarka Malkan Deegar Haqdarn in the revenue record as per Rule 16 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidatijon & prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1964. But the said land not having been used for any common purpose of the village as per entries in the revenue record, the same became "Bachat"Diwakar Gulati 2014.05.01 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.13005 of 2008 3
land. Therefore, this land cannot legally vest in the Gram Panchayat according top the various rulings of the Punjab & Haryana High Courts. The copies of jamabandies for the year 196-67 to 1996-97 are attached herewith."
A perusal of para 1 of the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 shows that the land was left for common purposes after pro-rata cut was applied from the holdings of the proprietors. Such land was said to be not being used for common purposes and Bachat land. Section 42-A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 has been inserted vide Punjab Act No.6 of 2007 in respect of Bachat land. The legality of such provision has been upheld by Division Bench of this Court in Mahatam Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2011(4) RCR (Civil) 499. Since the Bachat land was not partitioned prior to insertion of Section 42A in the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of such land reserved for common purposes during consolidation and has been rightly ordered to be evicted.
In view of the said fact, we do not find any question of title arises for consideration in view of the specific assertion of the petitioner in his petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 itself.
In view thereof, the present petition is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
APRIL 28, 2014 (FATEH DEEP SINGH)
'D. Gulati' JUDGE
Diwakar Gulati
2014.05.01 14:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document