Manjit Singh vs The State of Haryana

Jasbir Singh, J.—This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash an order dated 9.1.1990 (P-4), passed by respondent No. 2, refusing to interfere in a revision petition filed against an order, passed by the Collector u/s 13A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short ''the Act'')''. Respondent No. 5-Gram Panchayat had filed an application u/s 7 of the Act, against the petitioner, seeking his ejectment from land measuring 121 kanals and 15 marlas. It is case of the Gram Panchayat that after taking the land on lease, on expiry of the lease period, the petitioner has failed to hand over possession of the land to it.

During pendency of that application, the petitioner filed an application, claiming title in the land in dispute, stating that the Gram Panchayat is not owner of the land. As per revenue record, it was only mentioned that the Gram Panchayat derived income from the said land.

The proceedings were converted into a title suit and after recording evidence, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, vide order dated 16.12.1985, came to a conclusion that after taking the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat, it is not open to the petitioner to lay challenge to the Gram Panchayat''s ownership in the said land. Application, claiming title was dismissed and the Gram Panchayat''s application seeking ejectment of the petitioner was allowed.

The petitioner went in appeal, which was dismissed on 13.12.1989 by observing as under:-

That after hearing the Law Officer and references to the records of the case, I come to the conclusion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the order passed by the lower court is maintained. The Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land in dispute. The appellant had already paid the lease money for this very land which is borne out from the file of the case. It does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to be the owner of this land. The rent has been paid upto 14.6.1989. Subsequently, he had not paid the rent. I impose a penalty of Rs. 3500/- upon the appellant to make the payment to the Gram Panchayat. The High Court had ordered this case to be decided by 16.11.1989. It is regretted that the case could not be taken up earlier on account of strike which was continued since September 1989. The case is decided today. The strike of Lawyers had come to an end in the beginning of this month. Ordered accordingly.

The petitioner went in revision, which was dismissed on 9.1.1990 on a technical ground being not maintainable. Hence, this writ petition.

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that when dismissing his revision petition on 9.1.1990, the Commissioner, Ambala has committed an error of jurisdiction. It is stated that revision petition was dismissed, taking orders under challenge having been passed u/s 7 and not u/s 13-A of the Act.

After hearing counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere in the order under challenge.

It is amply proved on record and counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that the petitioner has taken the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat. Even in his reply filed on 22.7.1988, the petitioner admitted the above said fact and expressed his willingness to pay the lease money to the Gram Panchayat in future as well.

If that is so, the petitioner is estopped to claim title against the Gram Panchayat as per the provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Above provision reads thus:-

Estoppel of tenant and of licensee of person in possession - No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given.

It is clear that once the petitioner has taken on lease the land in dispute, it is not open to him to deny title of the landlord.

Under the circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in these proceedings. However, perusal of the order clearly indicates that none of the authorities have gone into the question of title, as per law, the matter was treated as an application for ejectment of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the petitioner''s right to lay challenge to the Gram Panchayat''s ownership cannot be denied.

Taking note of above said fact, we dispose of this writ petition and it is ordered that if the petitioner vacates possession from the land in dispute within two months from today, then thereafter, he may, if so advised, avail remedy u/s 13-A of the Act, seeking title in the land in dispute. To the above observation, no plausible opposition has been shown by counsel for the Gram Panchayat.