Gram Panchayat vs Kanshi Ram and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The appellant-Gram Panchayat filed an application Under Sections 4 and 7 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 against Kanshi Ram (respondent No. 1). This application was allowed by the Collector vide Order dated February 15, 1989. Aggrieved by the order, Kanshi Ram filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner vide his Order dated March 28, 1989. To challenge these orders, the respondent filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court. The learned Single Judge having accepted the petition, the Gram Panchayat has fifed the present appeal.

Mr. R.S. Sangwan, counsel, for the appellant has contended that the findings recorded by the teamed Single Judge are totally contrary to the record and cannot, thus, be sustained. The claim made on behalf of the appellant has been controverted by Mr. I.S. Balhara, counsel for the respondent-Kanshi Ram.

Kanshi Ram had challenged the orders passed by the prescribed authorities on the basis that he has:

"in cultivating possession of the land in dispute for the last more than 30 years and is co-sharer and Biswedar in village Hindole and the said land is entered in the revenue record as "Mustarka Malkan Hasab Rasad Raqba". This claim was controverted by the appellant-panchayat in the written statement. It was categorically averred that the petitioner has not been in cultivating possession for more than 30 years as co-sharer. In fact, he took the land in dispute on lease in 1975 from the Gram Panchayat". It was also claimed that the Panchayat is the owner of the disputed land by virtue of the provisions of the Punjab Common Lands Regulation Act, 1964. It has been the owner of the land since the year 1956. It is managing the land by leasing it out. The funds are being utilised for the maintenance of the school in the village.

The claim as made by the appellant-Panchayat in the written statement was not controverted by the respondent-writ petitioner by filing any replication. Besides this, the Collector had found as a fact that "the respondent has taken the land in dispute on lease from the Gram Panchayat in the year 1975-76. After this, it has been recorded in the Jamabandi for the year 1975-76 in the column of cultivation as Kanshi Ram s/o Hart Ram resident of village as Gair Marusi..." He further found that "the land in dispute was left for school in consolidation and Panchayat has started leasing it out and the income was started to be spent for the welfare of the general public. The respondent has taken the land in dispute on lease from the Gram Panchayat for Rs. 1500/- in 1975-76. After that he had never taken the land in dispute on lease. From this fact, it is proved that he is in unauthorised occupation of the land in dispute". The findings recorded were confirmed by the Commissioner and the respondent''s appeal was dismissed in limine. In spite of this, the learned Single Judge has taken the view that the Panchayat "did not lead any proof before respondent No. 2 that the land had vested in it and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not give any positive finding that the land had so vested...." Before any action could be taken under the Act. "it was incumbent on the authorities to come to a conclusion that the land vests" in the Panchayat on these premises, the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner were set aside. Was this correct?

The Haryana Legislature had promulgated the Haryana Common Purposes Land Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1985. This Act had received the assent of the President of India on December 4, 1985. It was published in the Haryana Gazette (Extra) Legislative Supplement, Part I dated December 26, 1985. This Act was promulgated to "provide for eviction of unauthorised occupants from land reserved for common purposes under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948". Section 2 defines the ''common purposes land'' to mean "the land reserved for the common purposes of a village u/s 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation), Act, 1948, the management and control whereof vests in the State Government or the Gram Panchayat u/s 23-A of the aforesaid Act." Section 3 provides that "notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the provisions of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972, shall apply to common purposes land which shall be deemed to be public premises for the purpose of the said Act." Thus, the 1985 Act introduces a fiction. It provides that the land reserved for common purposes in a village shall be deemed to be public premises for the purposes of 1972 Act. It is true that the land reserved for common purposes may not strictly fall within the definition of public premises'' as contained in Section 2(e) of the 1972 Act. However, this lacuna was plugged by making the provision in Section 3 of the 1985 Act. u/s 3 of the 1972 Act, a person is deemed to be in unauthorised occupation of public premises on the determination of the lease in accordance with the terms thereof. Still further, on a harmonies consideration of the provisions contained in 1972 and 1985 Acts, it is clear that the State Government or the Panchayat which is to manage the land may not be its owner. Yet, the land falls within the definition of ''Public Premises'' and eviction of the unauthorised occupant as also recovery of damages etc. can be sought under the provisions contained in Sections 4 and 7. This is precisely what the Commissioner and the Collector had permitted to be done in the present case.

The learned Single Judge had erroneously proceeded on the assumption that the Panchayat was required to prove itself to be the owner of the land. This was not at all necessary in the present case. It has been found that the land had been reserved for common purposes. Its income had to be used for the benefit of the public. The Panchayat had decided to use it, for the maintenance of the school obviously, the entire village community had an interest in it. It was in exercise of this right that the land had been leased out to respondent-Kanshi Ram in the year 1975. Even the Jamabandi, a copy of which was produced by the respondent as Annexure P- 1 with the writ petition, records the fact that the Chakota was Rs. 1225/- for the year. There was no other evidence to show that the respondent had any right or title in the land. It was not even indicated in the petition as to what is his total holding in the village so as to entitle him to be in possession of the land in village as a co-sharer. In fact, it appears that this plea was raised without any basis whatsoever. The appellant having given the land to the respondent on lease, it was entitled to claim that at the expiry of the period of lease, he had ceased to have any right to remain in possession of the property.

The claim of the respondent, in the writ petition that he had been in occupation of the land for the last 30 years, is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. The writ petition had been filed in the year 1989. Nothing has been produced on the record to show that the respondent has been in possession since the year 1959. There is no evidence at all on the file to support such a claim. Still further, the respondent has not produced any evidence to show that he had paid the lease money to the Panchayat after the year 1975-76. He has, thus, continued in occupation without payment. In this situation, there is no equity in his favour which may entitle him to continue in possession or to claim that the damages have been wrongly awarded by the prescribed authorities under the Act.

No order point was raised.

In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.