Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jarnail Singh And Ors. vs Joint Director, Panchayats And Ors. on 19 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: (1999)122PLR361
Author: N.C. Khichi
Bench: N.C. Khichi
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The Collector, the Commissioner and the learned Single Judge have decided against the appellants. They have ordered their eviction from the land in dispute. Not satisfied, the appellants have filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.
2. The appellants claim that they were in possession of agricultural land measuring 3-41-88 Hectares in Village Salimpur Jattan, Tehsil and District Patiala. They claim to have reclaimed the land and continued in possession as owners. This right was acknowledged by the Panchayat and the suit filed by the appellants for a declaration that they had become owners by adverse possession had been decreed by the Civil Court on February 6, 1979. Soon thereafter on March 29, 1979 mutation was sanctioned. That having happened, the appellants claim that they have become owners.
3. On October 13, 1980, the Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 before the Collector, Patiala. It claimed to be the owner of the land and prayed that the present appellants be evicted. The Panchayat had also filed another application under Section 11 praying that it be declared to be the owner of the land. The appellants had contested these petitions on the basis of decree in their favour. However, the claim made by the Panchayat was accepted by the Collector. Vide order dated October 12, 1982, the Collector found that "the bid of the land in dispute was stuck in favour of Karnail Singh son of Chhaju Singh for two years at the rate of Rs. 1,220/- per year on 3.6.1977.....".It was further found that the Civil Court had passed the decree on February 6, 1979 on the admission by the Panchayat. The case was not decided on merits. It was still further found that the present appellants "had not proved their possession since before January 26, 1950." With these findings, it was concluded that the appellants were not the owners and that they were in unauthorised occupation. Consequently, they were ordered to be evicted.
4. The findings recorded by the Collector were confirmed by the Commissioner. It was held that the decree passed by the Civil Court was non est. The period of lease for two years had expired. Thus, the possession of the appellants was unauthorised. Consequently, the order of the Collector was up-held.
5. Before the learned Single Judge, certain technical pleas were raised. These having been rejected, the appellants have filed the present Letters Patent Appeal.
6. Mr. Viney Mittal, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that in view of the decree passed by the Civil Court, the appellants were the owners of the property in dispute. The decree having been acted upon and the mutation having been sanctioned, it could not be said that the appellants were in unauthorised occupation of the land. Secondly, it has been contended that the Panchayat could not have filed the petitions under Sections 7 and 11 simultaneously and that the authorities under the Act were not entitled to decide them together. Learned counsel has further submitted that under Section 11, the Panchayat was not competent to approach the Court for the eviction of the appellants.
7. Admittedly, the provisions of the Act have been amended by the Punjab Act 19 of 1976. Besides amending the provisions of Section 31, regarding bar of jurisdiction in Civil Court, the provisions of Sections 13-A and 13-B were introduced. In Section 13-B, it has been specifically provided that "the provision of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law or any agreement, instrument, custom or usage or any decree or order of any Court or other authority." These provisions were admittedly introduced on April 27, 1976. Despite the provisions of Section 13 and 13-B, the jurisdiction of Civil Court was invoked and the Panchayat had conceded the claim of the appellants. It had suffered a decree on February 6, 1979. On that date, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. By virtue of Section 13, the decree passed by the Civil Court was wholly without jurisdiction. Even otherwise under Section 13-B, the decree was liable to be ignored and the provisions of the Act were to have over-riding effect. Consequently, the appellants can derive no right or title from the decree.
8. Even otherwise, it is the established position on the record that the land had been given on lease for a period of two years. This period had admittedly expired in June, 1979. Thereafter, the appellants had no right to remain in possession of the land. Their possession was unauthorised. That being so, the Panchayat was entitled to move a petition under Section 7 for their eviction from the land. It appears that the Panchayat had acted with extra caution and even filed a petition under Section 11 so as to establish its title in the property. Since the appellants were in unauthorised occupation, the Collector was competent to order their eviction in the petition under Section 7. Even if the proceedings initiated by the Panchayat under Section 11 are ignored, the order would be perfectly justified under Section 7. Still further, these orders having been confirmed by the Commissioner and the learned Single Judge, no ground for interference in the Letters Patent Appeal is made out. We find no illegality in the view taken by the Court.
9. No other point has been raised.
10. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal, which is consequently dismissed. No costs.