Punjab-Haryana High Court
Niranjan Singh vs Gram Panchayat Jangriana Distt ... on 4 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136352
CWP-3280-1987 (O/M) -1- 2024:PHHC:136352
101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-3280-1987 (O/M)
Reserved on : 06.08.2024
Date of decision : 04.11.2024
Niranjan Singh ...... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Gram Panchayat Village Jangirana, Tehsil and District Bathinda and
another ...... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present :- Mr. Akshat Dalal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Navneet Singh, Senior DAG Punjab
for respondent No. 2.
-.- -.-
HARSH BUNGER, J.
1. Petitioner (Niranjan Singh) has filed the instant civil writ
petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India, inter alia,
seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order
dated 10.06.1985 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned Collector-cum-
DDPO, Bathinda (in short 'Collector') and order dated 13.04.1987
(Annexure P-4), passed by learned Commissioner, Ferozepur Division,
Ferozepur, (in short 'Divisional Commissioner').
2. Briefly, respondent No. 1-Gram Panchayat Jangirana,Tehsil
and District Bathinda, filed an application for ejectment against the
petitioner and one Midha Singh, under the Punjab Public Premises and
1 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136352
CWP-3280-1987 (O/M) -2- 2024:PHHC:136352
Land (Eviction and Recovery) Act, 1973 (in short '1973 Act'); in respect
of land comprised in Khasra No. 13 (48-12), 657 (14-10) and 160/2 (2-2),
as per Jamabandi for year 1979-80.
2.1 The respondent No. 1-Gram Panchayat sought eviction of the
petitioner on the plea that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation
of land in question as he has not paid the lease amount from 1982-83
to 1984-85 and also that the lease had been terminated by the Panchayat
vide its resolution. A further prayer was made regarding recovery of
lease amount from 1982-83 upto date.
2.2 The present petitioner appeared in the aforesaid eviction
petition and contested the same by submitting his written statement,
wherein he stated that he was in possession of land comprised in Khasra
No. 13 (48-12) only and he was not in possession of remaining land. The
petitioner stated that he was in possession of land in question as a tenant
for the last 20 years and has been paying the lease (chakota) regularly,
therefore, he is not in unauthorized possession of land in question.
2.3 The learned Collector, after considering the pleadings as well
as documents/evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that
the land in dispute was owned by the Gram Panchayat and the petitioner
was in unauthorized possession as he had not paid the rent for the last
three years, accordingly, learned Collector, vide order dated 10.06.1985
(Annexure P-3), ordered ejectment of the petitioner from the land in
question. A further direction was issued to the petitioner to deposit an
amount equivalent to Rs. 2,250/- per year from 1982-83, for use and
occupation of the property.
2 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136352
CWP-3280-1987 (O/M) -3- 2024:PHHC:136352
2.4 Feeling aggrieved against order dated 10.06.1985
(Annexure P-3), the petitioner preferred an appeal before learned
Divisional Commissioner, which came to be partly allowed, vide order
dated 13.04.1987 (Annexure P-4), to the effect that the ejectment of the
petitioner was maintained, however, the direction as regards recovery of
arrears from the petitioner was set aside as no notice under Section 7
of 1973 Act was issued to the petitioner. However, liberty was granted to
the Gram Panchayat to lodge a fresh claim for recovery of arrears for use
and occupation of the land in question.
3. In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed
the instant civil writ petition for the relief(s), as noticed above.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner, while reiterating the
aforementioned facts, submits that the petitioner was a tenant under the
Gram Panchayat on fixed chakota of Rs. 2,250/- and the land in question
was leased out to the petitioner for an unlimited period. It is submitted
that prior to the petitioner; his predecessors-in-interest were also
cultivating the land on 'fixed chakota'. It is further submitted that the
Gram Panchayat had intentionally withheld the pattanamas executed by
the petitioner in favour of the Gram Panchayat, which would show that
the lease in favour of the petitioner was a perpetual lease and not on year
to year basis. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner could only
be ejected under the provisions of Section 9 of the Punjab Security of
Land Tenures Act, 1953 (in short 'the 1953 Act'). It is contended that
under the 1973 Act, there is no provision, on the basis of which a person
can be said to be in unauthorized possession, if he does not pay arrears of
3 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136352
CWP-3280-1987 (O/M) -4- 2024:PHHC:136352
rent. It is further contended that there is nothing on record to show that
the lease of the petitioner was ever determined or cancelled and in the
absence of same, the possession of the petitioner would not become
unauthorized. It is also contended that the Gram Panchayat has failed to
establish that the land in question was given for a fixed period and after
the expiry of that period, the petitioner's possession was unauthorized. It
is, therefore, submitted that the ejectment order passed against the
petitioner was illegal, arbitrary and perverse. Reliance is placed upon
judgments in case of Shyam Lal Versus Deepa Dass Chela Ram Chela
Garib Dass, 2016 (3) RCR (Civil) 812, and Paramjit and another
Versus Commissioner, Hisar Division Hisar, 2023 (3) RCR (Civil) 175.
With the aforesaid submissions, prayer has been made for setting aside
the impugned orders (Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4).
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-Gram
Panchayat has opposed the submissions made on behalf of petitioner by
submitting that the instant civil writ petition is not maintainable as the
relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and Gram
Panchayat has been denied by the petitioner in the civil suit filed by him
and, therefore, petitioner has lost the right of tenancy and he is in
unauthorized possession. It is further submitted that the possession of
land in question has been taken by Gram Panchayat in execution of
impugned orders, vide Rapat Roznamacha dated 06.03.1987. It is next
submitted that the petitioner has withheld the material facts regarding
filing of civil suit and his dispossession, therefore, he is not entitled to
seek relief from this Court. It is contended that the Gram Panchayat
4 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136352
CWP-3280-1987 (O/M) -5- 2024:PHHC:136352
cannot grant unlimited lease as the same is prohibited in law. It is next
submitted that no pattanamas were executed, as claimed by the petitioner.
It is stated that the petitioner has been rightly evicted from the land in
question as he was in unauthorized possession thereof on account of non
payment of lease from 1982-83 upto 1984-85 and also that the lease was
terminated by the panchayat. It is urged that the provisions of the 1953
Act are not attracted to the case in hand and there is no jurisdictional error
in initiating eviction proceedings against the petitioner under the 1973
Act. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for respondent
No. 1-Gram Panchayat, has prayed for dismissal of the instant civil writ
petition.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the paperbook with their able assistance.
7. Upon considering the matter, it is found that in the
eviction proceedings before the authorities below, the petitioner conceded
that he was a tenant under the respondent No. 1-Gram Panchayat;
however, the only stand taken by petitioner was that he is a tenant under
Gram Panchayat on fixed rent for unlimited period. It is the contention of
the petitioner that the provisions of the 1973 Act are not applicable and he
can be evicted only under Section 9 of the 1953 Act.
7. The appellate authority below upon consideration of the
matter, came to the following conclusions :-
(i) the petitioner had been occupying land in question on
yearly lease from 1982-83;
5 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136352
CWP-3280-1987 (O/M) -6- 2024:PHHC:136352
(ii) the petitioner stopped paying lease money to Gram
Panchayat;
(iii) the lease has not been extended in favour of
petitioner;
(iv) there is no material on record to show that the
petitioner is occupying land in question on lease exceeding
one year at a time;
(v) the Gram Panchayat is not competent to lease the
land for a period exceeding five years;
(vi) upon failure of the petitioner to pay the lease money
to the Gram Panchayat from 1982-83, the petitioner had
become unauthorized occupant;
(vii) termination of lease by a resolution of gram
panchayat was a measure of abundant caution;
(viii) the petitioner has taken inconsistent pleas before the
Collector and Civil Court inasmuch as that before the Civil
Court, the petitioner had pleaded that he has become owner
of the land comprising in khasra No. 13 (48-12) by virtue of
adverse possession, whereas in the proceedings under the
Public Premises Act, the petitioner has claimed that he has
been a lessee of the land for many years.
On the basis of aforesaid findings, the eviction of petitioner
from land in question has been upheld.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to dislodge the
aforesaid findings returned by the Appellate Authority below by referring
6 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136352
CWP-3280-1987 (O/M) -7- 2024:PHHC:136352
to any material whatsoever.
9. Further, in Punjab State Electricity Board v. State of
Punjab, 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 48; a Division Bench of this court culled
out the following propositions :-
"17. From the above noted decisions of the Supreme Court
and the Full Benches of this Court, the following
propositions can be culled out :
(i) Lawful possession cannot be established without the
concomitant existence of a lawful relationship between the
landlord and the tenant which necessarily postulates positive
consent of the landlord except when, in view of a special
law, the consent of the landlord is not necessary.
(ii) Litigious possession cannot be equated with lawful
possession.
(iii) A tenant of the public premises, who retains possession
after expiration of the term of lease without the consent of
the landlord, is a tenant-at- sufferance and he is liable to be
evicted by adopting summary procedure.
(iv) The deposit of an amount equivalent to monthly rent by
the erstwhile tenant/lessee after expiration of the term of
lease represents damages for unauthorised use and
occupation of public premises and acceptance thereof by the
owner during the pendency of proceedings in a Court of law
or before an authority constituted under the Act or otherwise
cannot give rise to a presumption that the owner has agreed
to revive the lease or create a new one in favour of the
erstwhile tenant/lessee and the Court cannot protect such
unauthorised possession of public premises..."
10. Therefore, once the petitioner was occupying the land in
question on yearly lease and there is no document to show that the lease
in favour of petitioner was ever extended by respondent-Gram Panchayat
7 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136352
CWP-3280-1987 (O/M) -8- 2024:PHHC:136352
and after the expiry of lease period, the petitioner did not hand over
possession of the land to the Gram Panchayat, accordingly, his possession
after the expiry of lease period should be deemed to be unauthorised and
illegal.
11. As regards the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner
that the provisions of the 1973 Act are not applicable to the case in hand
and that the petitioner can be evicted only under section 9 of the 1953
Act; it is observed that sub-section (1) of section 21 of the 1953 Act
expressly excludes the land owned by the Government or local bodies in
the State, from the application of the provisions of the 1953 Act.
Section 21(1) of 1953 Act reads thus :-
"21.(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall affect any land
held by a tenant or lessee under Government, or local
bodies in the State, or any unallotted evacuee land..."
12. The above extracted provision was considered by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat of village Bhagal v.
Bachna, 1988(2) Recent Revenue Reports 260 and it was held as under:-
"Special leave granted. Heard both the sides.
2. Respondent No. 1 Bachna, was inducted as a tenant for a
limited period of five years in 1963. Upon the expiry of the
term of the tenancy he had no authority to continue in
occupation of the common land belonging to the appellant
Gram Panchayat. He, upon the expiry of the five years term
had thus become an unauthorised occupant. He could
therefore be lawfully proceeded against under the provisions
of Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands
(Regulation) Act, 1961 read with Rule 19 of the Punjab
Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. The
protection of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures
8 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136352
CWP-3280-1987 (O/M) -9- 2024:PHHC:136352
Act, 1953 will not be available to the appellant have regard
to the provision contained in Section 21 which provides
that nothing contained in the said Act shall affect any land
held by a tenant or lessee under Government, or Local
bodies in the State, or any unallotted evacuee land. The
appellant-Panchayat is a local body. Under the
circumstances, respondent No. 1 cannot claim protection
under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act.
Respondent No. 1 has reminded as an unauthorised
occupant for nearly 18 years. He cannot be allowed to
continue any longer. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The
order passed by the High Court is set aside and the order of
eviction passed by the competent authority is restored. The
possession will be taken from respondents only after
respondent No. 1 removes the crops standing on the land in
question today, if any, or on the expiry of three months
whichever is earlier and on condition that respondent No. 1
files an undertaking within four weeks from today that he
will hand over peaceful possession of the land voluntarily
and willingly as soon as the crops standing on the land are
removed or within three months whichever is earlier. In case
no such undertaking is filed within four weeks, appellant can
proceed to take possession immediately thereafter. Order
accordingly..."
[emphasis supplied]
13. As regards the reliance placed by learned counsel for
petitioner upon the judgments in case of Shyam Lal (supra) and Paramjit
(supra), it is observed that the said judgments are distinguishable on facts
and neither the applicability of Section 21 of the 1953 Act was involved
therein.
14. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances,
I find no illegality in the findings recorded by the authorities below to the
9 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136352
CWP-3280-1987 (O/M) -10- 2024:PHHC:136352
effect that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant and is liable to be
ejected.
15. No other argument was raised.
16. Resultantly, the instant writ petition fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
17. It is further directed that the petitioner or anyone claiming
under or through him, shall hand over the vacant physical possession of
the land in question to the respondent-Gram Panchayat after removing the
crops standing on the land in question today (if any) or on the expiry of
four months from today; whichever is earlier and on condition that
petitioner or anyone claiming under or through him; files an undertaking
before the concerned Collector under the 1973 Act, within four weeks
from today that he will hand over peaceful possession of the land
voluntarily and willingly as soon as the crops standing on the land are
removed or within four months from today, whichever is earlier. In case
no such undertaking is filed within four weeks from today; respondent-
Gram Panchayat can proceed to take possession immediately thereafter
and if required, take police help as well.
18. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand closed.
(HARSH BUNGER)
JUDGE
04.11.2024
sjks
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
10 of 10
