Charan Singh vs State of Punjab

G.R. Majithia and S.K. Jain, JJ.—This judgment disposes of Civil Writ Petition No. 171 of 1985, 6983,11268, 11269, 11270, 11271, 11275, 11276, 11486 of 1988, 5322, 10063 of 1989", 7930, 7934, 7936, 7937 of 1992.

In CWP. No. 171 of 1985 under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge has been made to the order passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, reversing, on appeal the order dated September 9, 1981 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Faridkot . exercising the powers of the Collector (hereinafter the Collector) allowing the petitioner to continue in possession of Government land comprising Khasra No. 2276/1, 7 measuring 32 Kanals 19 Marias until the same was allotted to him in accordance with the Government instructions/Rules. In other connected writ petitions, a challenge has been made to the orders passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Divisions, Ferozepur, affirming in appeals to orders passed by the Collector evicting the petitioner from the disputed Government land under the Punjab Public Premises and Lands (Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1973).

Facts of C.W.P. No. 171 of 1985 first:

Notice u/s 4 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short, the Act) was served on the petitioner to show cause as to why an order of eviction be not passed against him. The Collector, after hearing the petitioner, permitted him to continue to occupy the land till the same is allotted to him in accordance with the Rules and instructions. The State of Punjab through Tehsildar, Faridkot challenged the order of the Collector, Faridkot in appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur (hereinafter the Commissioner). The appeal was allowed observing thus :-

"As per revenue record, there is no second opinion that land belongs to Provincial Government and falls within the public premises. The respondent also admits this fact in his written reply. The only aspect, which was imperatively to be considered by the learned Collector was as to whether the respondent was occupying the premises authorisedly or without any lease-deed or grant etc. This has not been done by the learned Collector while passing the impugned order. Moreover, the State of Punjab is the owner of the land in question as per the revenue record, who has been condemned unheard. The impugned order has thus been passed by the learned Collector in exercise of his powers not vested in him. In the light of the fact that the respondent is occupying the land in question unauthorisedly which is apparently owned by the State Government as per revenue record, the respondent has no locus standi to continue to occupy the public premises for unlimited period. Viewed in this context, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is accepted."

Indisputably, the disputed land along with other land was owned by the erstwhile Rule of Faridkot State. The Government of Punjab in the Revenue Department, vide its decision contained in Memo No. 4826JN (IV)-61/4817, dated June 10, 1961, allowed the erstwhile Ruler of Faridkot State to retain 12000 Ghamaons of land and the remaining land vested in the State of Punjab. Land measuring 20519 Kanals 2 Marias, which was allotted to the Co-operative Societies formed by the members of Scheduled Castes in the year 1956, was ordered to be treated as Nazool land to be transferred to the members of Scheduled Castes under the provisions of the Nazool Lands (Transfer) Rules, 1956 (for short, the Nazool Rules). The State Government had also been issuing instructions for sale/allotment of Nazool land and inferior evacuee lands.

The sole grievance of the petitioners is that the land in dispute in these writ petitions is Nazool land and should be transferred to them under the Nazool Rules. It became necessary to find out if the disputed land was Nazool land. The Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Faridkot filed affidavit dated May 11,1991. It will be useful to reproduce paras 2 and 3 of the affidavit in extenso:-

" 2. That in this connection, it is clarified that out of extensive lands owned and left by the erstwhile Ruler of Faridkot State, only 20519 K-2M was treated as Nazool land vide Govt. Memo dated 10.6.1961 mentioned above, and not the entire land obtained from the said ruler by the State Government.

That it is further clarified that out of the land measuring 20519K-2 M mentioned above, only 924K-15M of land situated at Kotkapura forms part of 20519 K-2M, which was allotted to Harijan Co-operative Society, Kapurthala vide order dated 16.3.1972 passed by the Collector, Distt. Bhatinda, copy of which is appended as Annexure R-l to this reply. The rest of the lands, declared as Nazool are situated in different villages of Faridkot Tehsil. The land in dispute is not part of 924 K - 15 M, which was declared as Nazool land at Kotkapura. Therefore, the fact remains that the land in dispute was never declared as Nazool land vide Govt. Memo dated 10.6.1961, as claimed by the petitioner."

The Collector in unequivocal terms has stated in his affidavit that the disputed land was not a part of the land which was declared as Nazool land at Kotkapura. Alongwith the affidavit, he also annexed the details of land which was declared as Nazool land and transferable under the Nazool Rules, the statement made in the affidavit was not challenged by the writ petitioners. We directed the Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab to summon a responsible revenue officer who could re-verify that the land covered in the writ petitions was not a part of land measuring 924 Kanal 15 Marias which was declared as Nazool land as alluded to by the Collector in his affidavit referred supra. As directed, the Tehsildar, Faridkot appeared in Court and submitted a statement, which will be Appendix ''A'' to this judgment. The statement indicates that the disputed land covered under the writ petitions is not a part of the land which was declared as Nazool land by the State Government. The petitioners'' plea that the disputed land is a part of Nazool land is factually incorrect. Since the disputed land is not the Nazool land, the petitioners are not entitled to the transferance of the same under the Nazool Rules.

The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the appeal against the order of the Collector allowing the petitioners to remain in possession of the land till it was allotted to them under the Rules was not maintainable. This plea is not available to the petitioners at this stage. It ought to have been raised before, the Commissioner.

Apart from this, we find that the petitioners have successfully thwarted the attempt of the State Government to recover possession of the disputed land from them under the provisions of the Act. Notices u/s 4 of the Act were issued to the petitioner. The Collector passed order unknown to law. Indisputably the disputed land belongs to the State of Punjab and falls within the definition of public premises arid the State Government was fully competent to evict the unauthorised occupants under the provisions of the Act. The Collector could not issue directions that the petitioners arc entitled to remain in possession of the disputed land till it was allotted to them under the Government Rules/instructions. He did not refer to any Rules or instructions under which the unauthorised occupant was entitled to retain possession of the Government land. He also did not refer to any Rules under which the State Government can be compelled to transfer the land to the unauthorised occupants. The petitioners got the land on lease from the State Government for a period of ten years. After the expiry of the lease, they did not surrender its possession to the State Government or got the lease renewed. They did not pay the lease money to the State Government. On the expiry of the lease, it was imperative for them to surrender possession of the leasehold land to the owner if they wanted to set up a title hostile to the true owner. They adopted a course which was impermissible at law and succeeded in retaining the amount for more than two decades without paying any lease money or mesne profits to the State Government. This Court ordered at the motion stage that the petitioners should deposit mesne profits of the leased land. The Revenue Officer who is present in Court says that no such deposit was made by the petitioners. We do not want to express any opinion with regard to the petitioners'' conduct for non-complying with this Court''s direction. The concession of ad-interim stay order staying their dispossession was obtained by them. That order was partially modified when they were directed to deposit the mesne profits/lease money, but they failed to comply with the later part of the Court''s order. It is unfortunate that revenue officers of the State did not move this Court for vacating the order under which the petitioners were allowed to retain possession of the disputed land till disposal of the writ petitions.

For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in these writ petitions. The same are dismissed. We direct the Collector, Faridkot to proceed against the petitioners under the Act expeditiously. He will take note of the fact that the petitioners have been in unauthorised occupation of the disputed land for the last more than two decades.