Mukhtiar Singh vs The State of Punjab and Others

A.L. Bahri, J.—This writ petition has been filed by Mukhtiar Singh for quashing order Annexure P-2 dated April 9, 1992, passed by Additional Director, Panchayat. Punjab, exercising powers of the Commissioner, quashing order of the Collector, where by land was ordered to be transferred to Mukhtiar Singh.

Gram Panchayat of village Kamrai filed an application u/s 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (in short called as "the Act"), for ejectment of Mukhtiar Singh from one Kanal of land comprising khasra number 237, alleging that he was unauthorised occupant over the same. Before the Collector it was represented that Mukhtiar Singh had constructed a house and he should be permitted to purchase the same. As per allegations, his request was accepted. Against the order of the Collector, appeal was filed by the Gram Panchayat, which was finally allowed vide order Annexure P-2.

Gram Panchayat land could be sold either under rule 4 or under Rule 12 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. They read as under :-

" 4. Terms for saving existing possession (Sections 5 and 15 (2) (f) of the Act :-(1) Where a person has built a house or erected any other structure on any land in the Shamilat deh, before the coming is to force of the Act, the Panchayat may allow such person to retain possession of the site by :

(a) Selling it to him at the market value prevailing at the time of the sale to be determined by the Collector or he officer appointed by him for the purpose; provided that if the person concerned is unable to pay the entire amount immediately it shall be recovered in such instalments to be spread over a period not exceeding five years as may be determined by the Panchayat; or

(b) Leasing out the site to him at an annual rent to be determined by the Collector or the officer appointed by him for the purpose at the rates prevailing at that time.

(c) Subject to sub-rule (1), the terms and conditions for sale or lease of land in shamilat deh shall be determined by the Panchayat in Pb. only)."

"12. Purposes for which land may be sold, (Sections 5 and 15 (2) (f) of the Act)-(1) A Panchayat may, with the previous approval of the Government, sell land in shamilat deh vested in it under the Act for-

(i) the purpose of constructing building for Block Samiti Office or any department of or institution recognised by the Government;

(ii) the purpose of any industrial or commercial concern; or

(iii) executing such a scheme as may be a source of recurring income for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village;

(iv) residential purposes of the inhabitants of the village-in Pb. only);

(v) for the purpose of financing the construction of building for schools and for veterinary and civil dispensaries in the Sabha area- in Punjab).

(2) Where it is proposed to sell the land in shamilat deh under sub-rule (1), the Panchayat shall forward to the Government a copy of its resolution passed by a majority of the three-fourth of its members proposing to sell the land through the Panchayat Samiti and (Deputy Commissioner in Hr.) (Divisional Director Panchayat Raj-in Punjab.) stating -

(a) the area and location of the land proposed for sale;

(b) the estimated income from the sale and whether the income would increase if the land is sold after some years;

(c) the reasons as to why the Panchayat wants to sell the land and the plans for utilization of the income from the sale.

(3) The publicity for sale of land in Shamilat deh by auction shall be made by the Deputy Commissioner in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub rule (10) of rule 6 on receipt of the approval of Government who shall also decide whether the land should be sold in one or more lots and the officer who (should in Pb.) (would in Haryana) be present at the auction."

Neither there is any allegation, nor a finding that the petitioner constructed the house on the disputed land prior to enforcement of the Act. Rule 4 aforesaid would not be attracted to the case in hand to sell the land over which the petitioner has constructed a house. Rule 12 also will not apply to the casein hand as no prior permission of the State Government has been taken before the alleged, sale of the land to the petitioner. The Collector, thus, had no jurisdiction to transfer the disputed plot of land of shamilat deh to the petitioner. The order being void, abinitio and without jurisdiction could be ignored and the bar of limitation would not come in the way of setting aside the void order, as has been argued by counsel for the petitioner in this Court that question of limitation in filing of the appeal was not considered by the Additional Director in the order Annexure P-2.

This writ petition also deserve to be dismissed on the ground of misrepresentation of facts and filing incorrect copy of the order of Annexure P-1, which purports to be an order of the Collector, Panchayat, dated January 20, 1988. Copy of the order passed by the Collector in case of Muktiar Singh has been shown indicating that the order was passed on December 31, 1988, and not on January 20, 1988, which related to Khasra No. 237. Even the body of the order Annexure P 1 does not tally with the contents of the order, copy of which has been shown. A perusal of the contents of the order Annexure P-l shows that it did not relate to Mukhtiar Singh but it related to some female as the petitioner in the body of the plaint has been described as "her". By producing incorrect and fabricated copy of the order the petitioner succeeded in getting interim directions issued in this case.

Alongwith the reply on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, copies of Khasra girdawaries and jamabandi relating to Khasra No. 237 have been produced. Annexure R-1, which is a khasra-girdawari, shows four kanals of land of khasra No. 237 as the cremation ground and Mukhtiar Singh (present petitioner) came into possession of a portion of the land of khasra No. 237 only in Sauni of 1989-90. Copy of Jamabandi Annexure R-2 shows that this khasra No. was recorded in the name of "Nagar Panchayat Deh-Maqbooza Ahle Hanud". From these documents it is clear that the petitioner entered into the land in dispute only in 1989 and any construction raised by him will not cloth him with any right to get the same transferred in his favour. He would be an authorised occupant and is liable to be ejected therefrom. The order Annexure P 2 was rightly passed.

In view of the discussions aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed with costs, which are quantified at Rs. 2,000/-, to be paid to the Gram Pancayat by the petitioner.