Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gajjan Singh vs Financial Commissioner on 18 December, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2626 OF 2006 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 18, 2012
Gajjan Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Financial Commissioner, Appeals (I), Punjab, Chandigarh and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab,
for the State.
Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner claims that he is in actual and physical cultivating possession of the land in dispute and had sown wheat crop at the time when he filed this writ petition before this Court in the year 2006. The petitioner relies on jamabandi for the year 1998-99, showing that he alongwith his brother were shown in cultivating possession as Gair Marusian on the land in dispute, ownership of which is shown as Arazi Matruka Billa Allot Shuda (Annexure P-1). Similar entries are contained in Jamabandi for the year 1993-94 in the column of ownership and cultivation.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2626 OF 2006 :{ 2 }:
Strange it may sound but the petitioner has averred that respondent No.4-Wakf Board approached the petitioner and represented that it is owner of the land in question. As per the petitioner, the Board compelled him to pay lease money and on this false representation by the respondent Board, the petitioner started paying lease money to the Wakf Board.
The petitioner claims to have made this land fit for cultivating by putting hard labour. Subsequently, the Rehabilitation Department approached the petitioner, representing that the land is owned by the said Department and it also compelled the petitioner to pay rent to it. Forced by these circumstances, the petitioner filed a civil suit, where injunction was granted on 27.9.2002 in favour of the petitioner and against the State of Punjab and others. The civil suit filed against the Wakf Board, however, was referred to Wakf Tribunal and on technical grounds, this suit was dismissed. These facts are apparently referred in guarded manner and correct picture is mentioned in the reply filed by the Board.
The petitioner later has filed another suit against one Gurbinder Singh, who was illegally granted some rights by Wakf Board. On 28.10.2002, status-quo order was passed against Gurbinder Singh. It is alleged that Respondent No.4 with malafide intention filed a false application for eviction of the petitioner in the Court of respondent No.3 on 1.7.1999. Said petition was accepted on 7.8.2000 and the eviction of the petitioner was upheld. He was directed to hand over the possession of the land in dispute to Wakf Board.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2626 OF 2006 :{ 3 }:
The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the District Collector, Ludhiana, who accepted the same on 23.7.2002. Against this order, respondent No.4 filed an appeal.
During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.3 dismissed the eviction application filed by respondent No.4 against the petitioner, which was appealed against by respondent No.4 before the Collector, Ludhiana. Respondent No.2, without application of mind and appreciating the facts, accepted the appeal of the Wakf Board on 26.2.2004, against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was dismissed, which order was upheld by the Financial Commissioner also. The petitioner accordingly filed this writ petition to impugn the order passed by the Financial Commissioner and other authorities directing his eviction.
Wakf Board in its reply has disclosed that the petitioner had taken this land measuring 58 kanals comprised in Khasra No.138 Min situated at Village Khassi Kalan, Tehsil and District Ludhiana from the Wakf Board temporarily from year to year. The yearly patta amount used to be enhanced as per the schedule rates of the Board. The land in dispute was given on patta to the petitioner for the year 1994-95 at `6500/- per annum. It is alleged that after year 1994-95, the petitioner, neither executed any fresh pattanama nor paid any amount of lease as per the schedule rate. When the Board asked the petitioner to vacate the land, he filed a false and frivolous civil suit before the Civil Judge, Ludhiana. This suit was dismissed in default. (This fact has not been clearly disclosed by the petitioner).
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2626 OF 2006 :{ 4 }:
Thereafter, the petitioner filed yet another suit, which is termed as frivolous wherein he has claimed himself to be tenant of Board and prayed for injunction. In the meantime, Wakf Board filed ejectment petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana. The petitioner appeared and filed reply, where he was proceeded exparte. On 7.8.2000, the petitioner was evicted from the land and was asked to hand over the vacant possession of the suit land to the Board within one month. As per the Board, the possession of the land was delivered to the Board by Kanungo in the presence of the officials of the Board.
The petitioner yet again filed another false and frivolous suit before the Civil Judge, Ludhiana, by concealing these material facts and got an exparte status-quo order. It is pleaded that the petitioner had never denied the ownership of the Board in the said suit and has admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the Board and the petitioner. While filing the civil suit, the petitioner never disclosed that Sub Divisional Magistrate had directed his ejectment and the possession of the disputed land has been delivered to the Board in execution proceedings.
The Board then filed a written statement in the suit. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for amending the plaint, alleging that the land belongs to the Department of Punjab and further alleged that he is in litigation with the Rehabilitation Department. This application remained pending, when the case was transferred to the Wakf Tribunal. The Wakf Tribunal dismissed the suit on the legal and technical ground of non-service of the legal CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2626 OF 2006 :{ 5 }:
notice before institution of the suit as required under Section 89 of the Wakf Board Act. It is accordingly alleged that the plea of the petitioner that the land in dispute is an evacuee property is totally false and, thus, the Wakf Board claims to be owner of the land.
Reference is made to a civil suit filed against Union of India by the petitioner. In the said suit, Tehsildar (Sales) made a statement that ownership of the land in question is not of the State of Punjab and Rehabilitation Department has nothing to do with the land in dispute. Copy of the statement is stated to be on record. On this basis, it is stated that the State Government can not be held to be owner of the land in dispute in view of this clear admission. It is accordingly pleaded that the petitioner is guilty of misstatement and approaching the Court with unclean hands.
It is, thus, pleaded that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs Vs. Jagan Nath (dead) by L.Rs and others, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 853.
During the course of hearing, the counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate whereby he has recorded a finding that the land does not belong to Wakf Board. The star argument raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the Wakf Board, thus, has no right to seek eviction of the petitioner as Board is not the owner of the property in dispute.
When this argument was raised by counsel for the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2626 OF 2006 :{ 6 }:
petitioner, the State was required to file response to the same. A short affidavit has now been filed by Rakesh Kumar Bhalla, Joint Secretary to Government Punjab, Rehabilitation Department. It is stated in the said reply that the land in dispute is located in Khasra No.138 of Village Khasi Kalan, Tehsil Ludhiana (East) and is recorded as an evacuee property and in the ownership column, it is recorded as Misal Hqiat 1957-58. However, as per report Roznamcha No.354, dated 17.5.2002, Dakhal warrant of Khasra No.138, area 58 kanals was executed in favour of Punjab Wakf Board on the basis of Gazette notification No.38 dated 19.9.1970. Report of Tehsildar is also annexed.
This is apart from the statement that the Tehsildar had made before the Wakf Tribunal while appearing there. The Punjab Government, thus, has not claimed ownership of the land in dispute.
I find that the petitioner has unnecessarily dragged on with this litigation since 2006. He himself has been paying lease to the Wakf Board. He had taken this land on lease from the Wakf Board till 1993-94. The submission that he was misled to do so is to be noticed and rejected. It is too puerile for being accepted. It is too childish to accept that somebody will keep on paying lease money to the Board on being misled. In fact, the petitioner has been filing the civil suit, showing himself to be a tenant of Wakf Board and it is only at a later stage that he changed his stance to seek amendment of the pleadings to contend that the land belonged to Rehabilitation Department.
Once the Punjab Government has come on an affidavit to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2626 OF 2006 :{ 7 }:
say that it has no claim over the property and in view of the facts as noticed, it can easily be said that the Wakf Board would have all rights to seek eviction of the petitioner.
The petitioner being tenant of Wakf Board can not raise a question on the title of Wakf Board. Otherwise also, the petitioner apparently has made a serious attempt to mislead the Court by misstating facts. The petitioner had also filed a civil suit by hiding information. I, therefore, find that the conduct of the petitioner is not fair in making the present approach before the Court and, thus, he does not deserve any relief in equity or in law.
To be fair to the counsel for the petitioner, he has referred to number of judgements before me, which are reported as Dwarka Dass (died) Rep. By His L.Rs Vs. Punjab Wakf Board, 1992 (1) P.L.R. 352, Punjab Wakf Board Vs. Kartar Singh, 1987 P.L.J. 95, Punjab Wakf Board Vs. Sanatam Dharam Boys Higher Secondary School, Hansi, through its President, 1987 RRR 548, Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. Vs. Natha Singh, 1988 (1) RRR 122, Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. Vs. Capt. Mohar Singh and others, AIR 1975 SC 1891, Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. Vs. Capt.Mehar Singh etc., 1975 CLJ 638 (SC) and Punjab Wakf Board Vs. Commissioner, Patiala Division and others, 1973 RLR 467, which have no relevance.
There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
December 18, 2012 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE