Punjab-Haryana High Court
Faridabad Complex Administration Etc vs Jagdish Chand Etc on 12 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034714
RSA-600-1994 2024:PHHC:034714
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
101
RSA-600-1994
Date of decision: 12.03.2024
FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION, FARIDABAD
AND ANOTHER
..Appellants
Versus
JAGDISH CHAND AND ANOTHER
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Sr. Addl. A.G., Haryana
and Mr. J.S. Pannu, AAG, Haryana.
for the appellants.
Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Aryaman Thakur, Advocate
for the respondents.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. This is defendants' regular second appeal against the judgment
passed by the First Appellate Court, which in turn has modified the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The respondents (plaintiffs
before the trial Court) are occupying public property which originally vested
in the Gram Panchayat. Subsequently, the outer limits of Faridabad Complex
now Municipal Corporation was extended to include the area of village.
Hence, the entire area of the erstwhile village came under the management
of Faridabad Complex Administration, which is now managed by Faridabad
Municipal Corporation.
2. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
3. Hereinafter the party shall be referred to their status in their suit.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034714
RSA-600-1994 2024:PHHC:034714
4. The plaintiffs filed a suit for grant of permanent injunction
claiming that they are in possession of the said land for the last 20 years as
tenants at Will by paying lease amount of Rs.6/- per bigha and they should
not be forcibly dispossessed from the land. The defendants contested the
case claiming that the plaintiffs are unauthorized occupants.
5. Upon appreciation of evidence, the trial Court held that there is
no evidence of tenancy created in favour of the plaintiffs, however, it was
held that the plaintiffs shall not be dispossessed except in due course of law.
The plaintiffs filed appeal, which has been accepted. The First Appellate
Court has held that the possession of the plaintiffs is as lessees because of
the following evidence:-
i. There are as many as four orders passed by the
Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, permitting the plaintiffs
to deposit the rent.
ii. In the revenue record, the plaintiffs are recorded as
'gair marusi' tenants because in Column No.9, there is an
entry of 'Lagaan' i.e. land revenue at the rate of Rs.6/-
per bigha.
6. Thus, the First Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs cannot be
dispossessed from the land and they are entitled to injunction. The Court
also declared that the plaintiffs are 'gair marusi' tenants.
7. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.
8. The learned counsel representing the appellants submits that in
the Column No.9 of the revenue record, the entry is not of rent but of
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034714
RSA-600-1994 2024:PHHC:034714
amount of land revenue. He submits that there is no evidence to prove that
the tenancy was created in favour of the plaintiffs either by Gram Panchayat
or by the Faridabad Complex Administration at any point of time. He
submits that the various orders passed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade,
in summary proceedings only permitted the plaintiffs to deposit the rent.
Hence, not conclusive.
9. On the other hand, the learned Senior counsel representing the
plaintiffs contends that there is consistent entry in favour of the plaintiffs to
prove the tenancy in their favour.
10. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the parties.
11. The creation of tenancy can either be by a bilateral contract
between the parties or by a legislation. The plaintiffs have not claimed that
they took the land on lease either from the Gram Panchayat or from
Faridabad Complex Administration. The First Appellate Court has erred in
reading the revenue record. The copy of the jamabandi for the year 1962-63
(Ex.D-1) shows that in Column No.10, there was no entry of rent. The entry
reflects the amount of land revenue, which is payable to the Government
even with respect to the private land. The land revenue and lease money are
not synonymous. Same entry continues in the jamabandi for the year 1967-
68 (Ex.D-2) and in jamabandi for the 1972-73 (Ex.D-3).
12. The learned counsel representing the appellants is correct in
contending that lease can be created only by a bilateral contract or under the
statute. In this case, the plaintiffs do not claim that they were inducted as
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034714
RSA-600-1994 2024:PHHC:034714
tenants in the suit land by the Gram Panchayat or by Faridabad Complex
Administration at any point of time.
13. Moreover, the orders Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-11 have been passed by the
Assistant Collector, IInd Grade on an application filed by the plaintiffs for
permitting them to deposit the rent under the Punjab Security of Land
Tenures Act, 1953. Although, the Faridabad Complex Administration
contested the applications, however, the authorities permitted the plaintiffs to
deposit the rent. Those are in nature of summary proceedings. The Assistant
Collector, IInd Grade did not cull out, the issues or permit the parties to lead
evidence. Hence, those would not operate as res judicata.
14. When the plaintiffs filed the present suit, they have claimed
tenancy on the ground that there is an entry in the revenue record. They have
not explained as to how the tenancy in their favour was ever created by
either the Gram Panchayat or Faridabad Complex Administration.
15. Consequently, the First Appellate Court has erred in modifying
the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
16. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the appeal is allowed. The
judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial
Court is restored.
17. The Municipal Corporation, Faridabad shall have liberty to take
possession of the public property in accordance with law.
18. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
March 12th, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034714
4 of 4
