Bikar Singh and others vs Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) and others

Rajive Bhalla, J.—The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside orders dated 19.10.2004 (Annexure P-7) and 20.02.2008 (Annexure P-9), passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Ludhiana and the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) (exercising the powers of Commissioner), Punjab, Chandigarh, respectively. Counsel for the petitioners submits that Bant Singh predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was cultivating land measuring 32 kanals and 9 marlas, situated in village Herian, as a tenant at will. The jamabandi for the year 1970-71, records Bant Singh as "Gair Mantsi" and the column of rent records rent @ Rs. 1080/- per annum. The subsequent jamabandies for the years 1995-96, 2000-01 and 2005-06 record the same entries. The Gram Panchayat tried to dispossess Bant Singh, forcibly. Bant Singh, therefore, filed a suit for permanent injunction before the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Samrala. The suit was decreed after the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Samrala, recorded a clear finding that the Gram Panchayat has failed to produce any evidence that it was leasing out the land. The Gram Panchayat filed a petition u/s 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ''1961 Act'') against the petitioners after their father, Bant Singh, passed away. The learned Collector has without considering entries in the revenue record and the fact that the Gram Panchayat did not produce any evidence that it had leased out the land, ordered the eviction of the petitioners. Despite the above entries, the Collector has held that the petitioner is in unauthorised possession of Gram Panchayat property. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed, without considering that the petitioners are recorded as a tenant at will and, therefore, protected by the provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. It is argued that as the petitioners are not in unauthorised occupation of Gram Panchayat property, a petition u/s 7 of the 1961, was not maintainable. It is further submitted that a Full Bench of this Court has held in Sarwan and Rati Ram, v. Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, 1985 P.L.J. 262, that a person recorded as tenant at will, cannot be said to be in unauthorised occupation, liable to eviction u/s 7 of the 1961 Act.

Counsel for the Gram Panchayat submits that entries in the jamabandi are incorrect. As per entries in the jamabandi, the land is "Shamilat Deh" and, therefore, the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. The entry in the jamabandies recording the petitioners as "Gair Marusi" on payment of rent are incorrect. The petitioners have not adduced any evidence of their tenancy by reference to any resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, any lease deed, or receipts of rent etc. It is argued that entries in the jamabandi, raise a rebuttable presumption of truth and as the petitioners have failed to adduce any evidence, in support of these entries, the entires stand rebutted. The petitioners or their father were never inducted as tenants, by the Gram Panchayat. Manjit Singh and Jarnail Singh took the land on lease in 1991-92 and 1992-93 and thereafter did not surrender possession to the Gram Panchayat. The Collector has, therefore, rightly ordered their eviction. It is further argued that the stand taken by the petitioners that the land in dispute is "Bachat Land", is contradictory and in fact clearly establishes that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants.

We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders.

The only point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners have been able to establish their status as tenants on the basis of an entry in jamabandi that records them as "Gair Mantsi" on payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- and Rs. 800/- and are, therefore, not liable to eviction u/s 7 of the 1961 Act.

The land, in dispute is, admittedly, recorded as the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners'' claim that they are tenants as jamabandies record that they are in possession as "Gair Marusi" on payment of rent. The jamabandi for the year 1970-71 records the ownership of Gram Panchayat Deh, and possession of Bant Singh, on payment of Chakota @ Rs. 1080/- per annum. The jamabandi for the year 1995-96 repeats the above entry except that it records possession of Bant Singh as "Gair Marusi". In jamabandi for the year 2000-01, the entries are the same except that the rent is reduced to Rs. 400/- per annum.

An entry in a jamabandi is evidence of the fact, it records but not the fact itself. The fact, particularly if it relates to a tenancy must be proved, independent of the entry in the revenue record and in case of a Gram Panchayat by proving a resolution, holding of an auction and execution of a lease deed as prescribed by Rule 6 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. The petitioners have not produced any resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat agreeing to lease out the land to the petitioners or their father, nor any lease deed executed by the Gram Panchayat. In reply to the petition filed u/s 11 of the 1961 Act, the petitioners have alleged that the Sarpanch agreed to lease out the land to them. The petitioners were, therefore, required to prove the lease or at least the agreement, so as to save themselves from ejectment. In the absence of any resolution or lease deed executed by the Gram Panchayat, in accordance with Rule 6 of the 1964 Rules, entries in the jamabandies do not confer the status of a tenant so as to enable the petitioners to allege that they are the tenants, protected by the Punjab Land Revenue Act or by the judgment in Sarwan and Rati Ram (supra). The petitioners are unauthorised occupants of panchayat property and have, therefore, been rightly ordered to be evicted. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed.