Kanshi Ram vs Commissioner, Hissar Division

G.R. Majithia, J.

In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has impugned the orders dated February 15, 1989 and March 28, 1989 passed by respondents No. 2 and 1 respectively.

Facts first : Respondents No. 3 initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 4 and 7 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the land in dispute was leased out to the petitioner and on the expiry of the lease period, he did not vacate the same. The authorities under the Act negatived the claim of the petitioner that the disputed land did not vest in respondent No. 3.

The approach of respondents No. 1 and 2, on the face of it, is perverse. They did not give a positive decision that the disputed land vested in respondent No. 3 and, if so, under what Act. In the Jamabandi for the year 198586, in the column of ownership it is recorded thus:

"Mushtarka Malkan Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat.

Presumption of truth attaches to the entries in the records of rights. The disputed land is owned by the coowners as per their entitlement in the Khewat. Respondent No. 3 did not lead any proof before respondent No. 2 that the land had vested in it and respondents No. 1 and 2 did not give any positive finding that the land had so vested in respondent No. 3 and it had the right to move the instant application under Sections 4 and 7 of the Act. Respondents No. 1 and 2 were principally swayed by the fact that the petitioner had taken the land on lease from respondent No. 3 and he was estopped from challenging the tide of the lessor. There can be no estoppel against the statute. Respondent No. 3 is not recorded as owner in the record of rights but has asserted that the disputed land vests in it. Before any action could be taken under the Act, it was incumbent on the authorities under the Act, to come to a conclusion that the land vests in respondent No. 3 and it had become owner thereof and was entitled to initiate the proceedings for eviction of the occupant. The impugned orders cannot be sustained.

For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the orders dated February 15, 1989 and March 28, 1989 passed by respondents No. 2 and 1 respectively are quashed. However, respondent No. 3 will be at liberty to take such action against the petitioner under the law. There will be no order as to costs.