Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jarnail Singh vs The Joint Development Commissioner ... on 4 October, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1997)115PLR133
Author: Iqbal Singh
Bench: Iqbal Singh
JUDGMENT N.C. Jain, J.
1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner who has been ordered to be evicted by the authorities under the Public Premises Act on the ground that he is unauthorised occupant. An application under Sections 4, 5, and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed by the Gram Panchayat, respondent No. 3 for eviction of the petitioner from khasra No. 28/117/2 (3K-8M) on the ground that the land falls within the definition of the Act. It has been averred in the application that the management and control of the land is given to Gram Panchayat under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948 and Rule 16 (ii) of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1949 and under Section 23-A of this Act. The petitioner, in reply to the averments made in the petition averred that the petition under the Act is not maintainable on account of the dismissal of the application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. It was further averred that the petitioner was not liable to be evicted as he was in possession of the land before January 26, 1950. The Collector by his order dated 16.11.92 (Annexure P-3) ordered the eviction of the petitioner after recording a firm finding that the disputed land falls within the definition of "Public Premises" and that the management and control of such land has been given to Panchayat under rule 16(ii) of the Rules, The petitioner filed an appeal against the order (Annexure P-3) which has been dismissed vide Annexure P-4. The appellate Authority has found this fact that the petitioner got the disputed land from the Gram Panchayat on Chakota and that he admitted the factum of taking of the land on lease before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. It has further been found that the Gram panchayat had been leasing out the disputed land on Chakota earlier. In the year 1983-84, the disputed land was given on lease to one Jeet Singh. In the year 1985-86 and in 1986-87, the disputed land given to Charan Singh and thereafter, the petitioner entered the disputed land as lessee. It has further been found that after the expiry of the lease period, the petitioner has not given back the possession of the land to the Gram Panchayat.
2. In view of the afore-mentioned findings recorded by the authorities below, we are of the considered view that no interference in the writ jurisdiction is called for. It is well settled principle of law that no person can deny the title of the landlord and therefore, without going into any other question, the petitioner deserves to be thrown away from the disputed land as an unauthorised occupant under the Public Premises Act. The findings have been recorded by the authorities below on the facts which are not open to challenge.
3. Before parting with the judgment, it is necessary to discuss the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. It has been argued by the learned counsel that question of title has not been decided by the authorities below. The argument, in our considered view, deserves to be rejected. The authorities below were under no obligation to decide the question of title in view of the fact that the petitioner is bound to surrender the possession on the expiry of lease term and if he has not done so, he deserves to be held an unauthorised occupant. Faced with this situation, the counsel has argued that the land belongs to the proprietory body (Jumla Mushtarka Malkan) and the petitioner being the co-sharer is not liable to be evicted. We are of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner as co-sharer in this petition. The petitioner having been found to have taken the land on lease and having not vacated the same after the expiry of the lease period, will have to be treated as an unauthorised occupant and cannot save his liability from eviction under the Public Premises Act. If the petitioner has got any other right in the disputed land on account of the land belonging to Jumla Mushtarka Malkan, be can knock the doors of an appropriate authority.
4. For the reasons recorded above, we find that the petition is devoid of merits and is, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/-