Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 November, 2023
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148503-DB
CWP-19004-2023 -1-
2023:PHHC:148503-DB
111
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-19004-2023
Date of decision:22.11.2023
DARSHAN SINGH
...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. T.S. Hundal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Maninder Singh, DAG, Punjab
Mr. J.S. Bhandohal, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition is directed against the concurrently
made verdicts of eviction, as became respectively rendered by the learned
Collector concerned, and, by the learned Commissioner concerned. The said
concurrently made orders of eviction are respectively appended with the
writ petition as Annexure P-1, and, as Annexure P-3.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended with much
vigor before this Court, that since the petitioner had claimed the vestment of
title vis-a-vis the suit lands, thus on the basis of adverse possession.
Therefore, he contends with much vigor before this Court that, since thereby
the present petitioner had raised a dispute with respect to title inhering in
him vis-a-vis the suit lands. Resultantly, he argues that in terms of the
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148503-DB
2023:PHHC:148503-DB
proviso to Section 7 of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)
Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), provisions whereof are
extracted hereinafter, the learned Collector concerned, was enjoined to make
a prima facie satisfaction, that the said assertion of title vis-a-vis the suit
lands, has an aura of truth, and, thereafter was required to permit the
petitioner, to submit his claim under Section 11 of the Act, and, further was,
till a decision becoming rendered thereons, rather required to keep pending
the petition cast under Section 7 of the Act.
"[Provided that if after receipt of the application and
before the Panchayat is put in possession of the land or other
immovable property in the shamilat deh, a question of right,
title or interest in such land or property is raised by any person
and a prima facie case is made out in support thereof, the
Collector shall direct the person who has raised such question
to submit his claim under section 11 and till the question is so
determined, the application shall remain pending:
Provided further that if the person, who has raised the
question of right, title or interest, fails to submit his claim
under section 11 within the time prescribed under that section,
the Collector shall presume that no question of right, title or
interest is involved and shall proceed further to put the
Panchayat in possession of the land or other immovable
property in the shamilat deh]."
3. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that
in view of the mandate of the above extracted proviso, becoming breached
by the learned Collector concerned, as such, the concurrently made verdicts
of eviction are fallible, and, are required to be quashed, and, set aside.
4. For the reasons to be assigned hereinafter the above made
argument does not appeal to the judicial conscience of this Court, and, is
obviously required to be rejected.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148503-DB
2023:PHHC:148503-DB
5. The primary reason for rejecting the said argument, is based
upon the factum, that the petitioner had acquired possession of the disputed
lands, through a lease becoming granted in his favour, since the year 2016.
Furthermore, in Annexure P-1 there occurs also a finding to the extent, that
though, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.2,000/- as security, but since he
failed to pay the remaining amount of lease money, to the Gram Panchayat
concerned, nor proceeded to deliver the vacant possession of the disputed
lands, to the Gram Panchayat concerned. Therefore, notice was issued upon
the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat concerned, to thereby terminate the
lease, and, with a direction, upon, him to deliver the vacant possession of
the disputed lands, to the Gram Panchayat concerned.
6. In consequence, through the concurrently made verdicts of
eviction, the petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the petition lands.
7. The effect of the above finding, is that, since the petitioner
assumed the possession of the petition lands, through lease, becoming
granted in his favour. Therefore, the said manner of assumption of
possession of the petition lands, does not enable the learned counsel, for the
petitioner to contend, that thereby he was holding adverse possession of the
suit lands, or that the petitioner with an animus possidendi, thus assumed
possession thereof, nor thereby his title over the suit lands became perfected
through efflux time rather commencing from the year 2016.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has also rested the
afore espousal, rather on the basis of a verdict rendered by the learned Civil
Court concerned (Annexure P-4), thus in a suit for permanent injunction,
whereby, the plaintiffs therein espousal qua the rendition of decree of
permanent prohibitory injunction, rather became granted, whereby the
defendant therein Gram Panchayat concerned, was restrained from
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148503-DB
2023:PHHC:148503-DB
interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the disputed
lands.
9. However, it appears on a reading of the said verdict, that the
plaintiffs therein, did raise the plea of theirs perfecting the title over the suit
lands, through adverse possession, but it also appears that a finding became
recorded by the learned trial Judge concerned, whereby, the said plea
became dispelled. Immense fortification to the above inference, ensues from
the operative part of the verdict carried in Annexure P-4, operative part
whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, wherein there is a specific finding
that the Gram Panchayat concerned, may not dispossess, the plaintiffs from
the suit lands, till the plaintiffs are evicted in accordance with law.
"In view of my findings on aforesaid all the issues, suit
stands decreed ex-parte with costs to the effect that the
defendant Gram Panchayat is hereby restrained from
interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over
the suit land measuring 8 kanals 14 marlas bearing Khewat
No.799/684, Khatauni No.1531, Khasra Nos.6//23/2/2 (1-14),
8//3/2(1-18), 9//10/2(4-14), 22//14/2(0-8) as per jamabandi for
the year 2014-15, situated at village Kotra Koria Wala, as
detailed in the head note of the plaint and dispossessing them
from the suit land, illegally and forcibly, except in due course
of law. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to Record
Room."
10. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the
said judgment has acquired finality, and, conclusivity, thereby the operative
part of the verdict (supra), does also hold the consequent effect, of thereby,
the petitioners becoming estopped to contend, even through Annexure P-4
that they had perfected title over the suit lands by adverse possession.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148503-DB
2023:PHHC:148503-DB
11. If so, the said plea if became raised in a petition filed under
Section 7 of the Act, as such, the finding recorded by the Authorities below
that no cogent evidence to substantiate the said plea became adduced, and,
thereby theirs concurrently holding that there was no occasion to permit the
petitioner, to avail the benefit of the proviso (supra), but obviously makes
the impugned verdicts to suffer from no grave legal fallacy. Resultantly, the
apposite non reference of the dispute, relating to assertion of title, on the
above basis, rather by the learned Collector concerned, does not suffer from
any gross non-application of mind, to the above extracted proviso, nor this
Court is coaxed to accept the above made submission addressed before this
Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
12. In nutshell, this Court finds no merit in the instant petition, and,
is constrained to dismiss it. Hence, the instant petition is dismissed.
13. No order as to costs.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
22.11.2023 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Ithlesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148503-DB
5 of 5
