Mangtu vs State of Haryana

S.S. Sodhi, J.

The challenge in the Writ Petition referred to above as also in Civil Writ Petition No. 840 of 1977 (Ram Kumar v. The State of Haryana and others) was to the order of ejectment passed against the petitioners under section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').

The case of the petitioners was that though the land in question belonged to the Gram Panchayat, but they had been in possession thereof for the last over 50 years on payment of only nominal rent and their status consequently thereon was that of occupancy tenants. No order of ejectment could, therefore, have been passed against them. This claim was founded upon the provisions of Section 3(4)(ii) of the Act. In order, however, to render this provision of law applicable, it must be established not only that the possession of the land was for more than 12 years before the commencement of the Act but this possession was without payments of rent or payment of charges not exceeding land revenue and the cesses payable thereon.

According to the case as put forth by the petitioners, they were not in possession of the land without payment of rent nor has it been alleged that what were paying as rent were charges which did not exceed land revenue or cesses payably on this land. The nominal rent as paid by the petitioners cannot be construed to mean that it was less than the land revenue and cesses payable on the land.

An attempt was next made to contend that mere payment of rent must be taken to suffice to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the Gram Panchayat and consequently the petitioners were thereby rendered entitled to the protection afforded to tenants under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. This again is a contention of no avail to the petitioners as the possession of the petitioners could only be protected, if it could be shown that such possession was an allottee, lessee or grantee of the land concerned. Admittedly, the petitioners have no allotment lease or patta in their favour. It would be relevant to advert to the explanation as contained in Rule 19 of the Rules framed under the Act which provides that the mere fact that a person has paid rent shall not be taken to establish his possession as an allottee, lessee or grantee of the land concerned. In this view of the matter the provisions of Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act cannot afford any protection to the possession of the petitioners over the land in question.

Counsel for the petitioners then sought to invoke the provisions of section 4(3)(i) of the Act on the plea that they were occupancy tenants on this land and were also recorded as such in the revenue records. According to counsel''s own showing the petitioners are entered in the revenue records as marusi. There is thus no warrant to hold the petitioners entitled to protection even under this provision of law.

For the foregoing reasons the impugned order of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Bhiwani (Annexure P/1) and of the Collector, Bhiwani (Annexure P/4) call for no interference. It may be mentioned that counsel for the petitioners sought to rely upon Gram Panchayat Ranwan v. Amar Sath and others 1971 PLR 273, Ram Bhaj v. Commissioner, Amabala Division and another, 1972 RLR 582 and Jagjit Singh v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 1982 LLR 99. None of these authorities has any relevance to the question raised and consequently call for no comments.

In the result, both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.