Amarjit Singh vs State of Punjab and others

S.D. Bajaj, J.—On February 2, 1981, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dudar tehsil and district Patiala in the State of Punjab moved before the District Development and Panchayat officer, functioning as Collector Patiala, an application u/s 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 for evicting respondent Amarjit Singh from 12 Kanals 10 Marias of land comprised in Khasra No 592(7-18) and 593/4-12) situated in village Dudar aforesaid stating that the land in dispute vested in the Gram Panchayat and the respondent was occupying it as trespasser. Respondent urged in reply that the land did not vest in the Gram Panchayat and stated that he was himself the owner of it or in the alternative a tenant on it under the Gram Panchayat. Both the Collector as also the Commissioner hold that the land vested in the Gram Panchayat and that the respondent was a trespasser on it. Ejectment of the respondent was thus ordered by them vide their assailed orders dated March 31, 1982 and May 27, 1983 respectively.

Through the same order of May 27, 1983 aforesaid learned Commissioner also dismissed ten other appeals (particulars set out in the last paragraph of the assailed order) stating that the facts of those cases were similar to the ones obtaining in the case of the petitioner. Hence Civil Writ Nos. 6051 and 607 to 611 of 1983 in this Court. All these writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of through this order.

The basis for making the order of eviction against the petitioner set out in the assailed order passed by the learned collector on March 31, 1982 which was affirmed by the learned Commissioner in appeal on May 27, 1983 is that the petitioner having admitted himself as tenant under the Gram Panchayat on disputed lands was stopped in terms of section 116 of the Indian Limitation Act from denying the title of the Panchayat to the lands in his occupation as such tenant and that in the revenue entries for the years after 1975, the petitioner having been recorded as trespasser in occupation of the disputed land, the petitioner was liable to be evicted there from. Hence the assailed order of eviction against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner referred us to rule 21-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 and urged that after the petitioner had put in before the learned Collector an application in the form of statement duly signed and verified in the manner provided in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, supported by a copy of the revenue record, within 30 days from the date of accrual of the cause of action, the Collector was obliged to decide the matter after affording to both the parties, a reasonable opportunity to substantiate their respective claims. The learned Collector could not thereafter continue with the summary inquiry envisaged in Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and make the assailed order of eviction against the petitioner. For facility of reference the relevant rule is being reproduced

hereafter:-

21-A. (1) Any person claiming a right, title or interest in any land vested or deemed to have been vested in the Panchayat may submit an application in the form of a statement duly signed and verified in the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 supported by a copy of the revenue record within thirty days from the date of the accrual of cause of action to the Collector;

(2) The Collector, shall, after receiving the application, send notice to the Panchayat concerned alongwith a copy of application directing it to appear before him on the date fixed for the purpose. The Collector shall decide the matter after affording a reasonable opportunity to the parties to substantiate their respective claims.

Besides the rule aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred us to the observations made in Tara Chand Fateh Singh v. Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha of village Atail and others 1979 P.L.J. 1 and Gram Sabha Salina v. Nahar Singh and others 1982 P.L.J. 261, as authorities for the view that the whole scope of enquiry u/s 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 is whether possession of the person proceeded against is wrongful or unauthorised and that the question of title raised by the petitioner in his application filed before the learned Collector in the form of a statement envisaged in rule 21-A aforesaid cannot be subjected to summary enquiry u/s 7 ibid.

For these two separate situations envisaged in sections 7 and 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 which are to be decided in terms of the procedure prescribed in rules 20, 21 and 21-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules. 1964 respectively learned Collector could not amalgamate both the procedures to suit his convenience. The amalgamation of the two procedures aforesaid, indulged in by the learned Collector and approved by the Commissioner is not warranted by the Scheme of the Act. There is a basic difference between these two rights. In the proceedings for determination of the possession, the right of ownership cannot be decided when the provision for it is made separately in the same statute Similarly the question of wrongful or unauthorised possession cannot be decided in the proceedings u/s 11 read with rule 21-A aforesaid when the same officer under the same statute is invested with powers to decide that matter under the separate provision having separate procedure. He cannot, to suit his convenience or the convenience of any of the parties adopt any procedure out of the two nor can amalgamate both the procedures, as it is not warranted by the Scheme of the Act.

In result, the Writ Petition is allowed, assailed orders dated March 31, 1982 and May 27, 1983 passed by the learned Collector and learned Commissioner respectively are both set aside and the learned Collector is directed to decide the claim of title put in by the petitioner before him in terms of section 11 read with rule 21-A aforesaid. The respondents shall pay to the petitioner costs of this petition. Counsel fee assessed at Rs. 300/- only.

G.C. Mital, J.

I agree.