Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

31. The liability of the petitioners has then been determined by respondent No. 2 as if the Civil Court's decree based on their admission had resulted in the total loss of the land to the real beneficiaries or the owners for all times to come. The Shamilat deh" or the village common lands had vested in the Gram Panchayats as managers or trustees and the panches were supposed to administer and control these lands for the administer and control these lands for the benefit of the electorate of the Sabha area as their executive body as indicated in the preamble to the Act or in the best interests of the residents of the area as indicated in sub-section (2) of S. 99 of the Act. In cases where the Gram Panchayat or its members had failed to discharge their duties as managers or trustees in a responsible manner and to have belied the confidence reposed in them, the owners or the beneficiaries could still have some right and remedies. The Act itself provides a number of remedies under Section 96, 97, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105 etc. The remedies provided by the general law would also be available as Section 104 affords the Panches a protection only in respect of the acts done by them in good faith. The Collector had granted the leases under the East Punjab Utilisation of Lands Act, 1949. He was no party to the proceedings in the Civil Court which had culminated in collusive decrees passed on the admission of the petitioners or their nominee. The plaintiffs' rights under the lease could not have been unilaterally improved upon or affected in proceedings to which the Collector who was their landlord was not a party. The Collector has the right under the provisions of the East Punjab Utilisation of Lands Act, 1949, to forfeit the lease or to take possession on the expiry of the maximum term of twenty years for which the lease could have been granted. The collector's rights and powers are not in any manner taken away by a decree passed in proceedings to which he was not a party. The Collector deals with the lessees on the one hand and with the owners or beneficiaries of the land on the other in separate and dual capacities. His right to take over possession of the land from the lessees on the expiry of the maximum period of the lease would depend on the terms and conditions of the lease or on the provisions of the Act of 1949 while his liability to restore the possession of the land to the owners would be a separate matter altogether. There was no direct privity of contract between the lessees and the owners of the land and it seems to make hardly any difference whether the land belonged to the proprietors individually or to the general proprietary body as a whole. It may be observed that the Collector had granted these leases some years before the Shamilat lands could be taken to have vested in the Gram Panchayats under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation Acts of 1953/1954 or 1961. One other ground for concluding that the decrees passed on the petitioners admission were collusive would be that the proceedings in which these decrees have been passed were between the parties who had no direct privity of contract. The Collectors liability to restore possession of the lands to the owners under Section 7 of the East Punjab Utilisation of Lands Act, 1949, does not depend on the attitude adopted by the lessees or the decrees that they might have obtained against some one who is not their landlord. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in The Karnal Co-operative Farmers Society Ltd., Pehowa v. The State of Haryana 1972 Punj LJ 172, that this section in intra vires of the Constitution of India and that the ejectment of the lessees after the expiry of the term of the lease has to take place automatically and that the lessee has no right to object to his ejectment. The Collector is not bound by the collusive decree obtained by the lessees against the petitioners and the Collector can still restore the possession of the lands to the real beneficiaries or the owners. If the Gram Panchayat persists in making default in the performance of its duty or in abusing its powers, the Government can under Section 103 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, take action to suspend, supersede or abolish the Panchayat. In any case, respondent No. 2 has not given any reason why the petitioners were to be assessed to loss as if the land had been taken away permanently from the owners or beneficiaries and that nothing could be done to retrieve the land from the lessees after the expiry of the term of the lease. the impugned order of respondent No. 2 is in any case silent on these material aspects of the case and there is not even the barest outline of the process of reasoning by which the petitioners have been held liable to make good the loss to the extent of the full value of the land assessed at rates which are more than twice the prevailing market rates. As the impugned orders are absolutely silent on these material aspects, the right of appeal may also appear to be an illusory remedy. It was held in Ulwar Singh v. State, AIR 1965 All 412, that the remedy available to challenge an order in revision or appeal would become illusory where the where the officer or authority passing the impugned order has failed to record his reasons in writing. On material aspects of the case, the impugned orders of respondent No. 2 are non-speaking orders. These orders have, therefore, been successfully assailed by the petitioners on grounds Nos. 5 and 6.