AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 356 wordsK. Kannan, J.
I. CWP No. 5747 of 1992
The writ petition raises the issue of the tenability of an action under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act of 1973 (for short, the 1973 Act). The assumption for invoking the petition was that the property belonged to the gram panchayat and the same was treated as a common land in the consolidation proceedings. The issue of what vests in the gram panchayat or the State which is described as common land was considered on a reference to Full Bench in Parkash Singh and others Versus Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and others in CWP No. 2318 of 2002, decided on 08.11.2013. The Full Bench has made a distinction between the property which would vest as regards ownership with the State or its functionary and a property which is described as Mushtarka Malkan which will vest with the panchayat only as regards management and control. The Full Bench has ruled that the issue of title whenever it is raised cannot be decided by the authorities and it would only require to be adjudicated before a civil court. The property in respect of which action has been taken under the Act was a property described as Mushtarka Malkan and consequently, the ownership had vested only with the proprietors. The degree of control that the gram panchayat would exercise in respect of such a property is only for the purpose of realizing the income from the land and the property itself cannot qualify as a property vesting in the gram panchayat for an action under the 1973 Act for ejectment. The Full Bench ruling squarely governed the issue raised in this writ petition and the action for ejectment under the Act would be incompetent. The impugned order of ejectment passed under the Act would require to be quashed and accordingly, quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
II. Civil Writ Petition No. 16317 of 1993
In view of the above said judgment in CWP No. 5747 of 1992, the writ petition in CWP No. 16317 of 1993 has become infructuous and disposed as such.