Tale and others vs Gram Panchayat of Village Katwal and others

M.R. Sharma, J.—The petitioners are in cultivating possession of the land in dispute. They have alleged that they were allowed to keep it by one Bawa Kehri Nath, who was a Dohlidar in village Katwal. There was some litigation between this Dohlidar and the Gram Panchayat which persuaded the Gram Panchayat to eject the petitioners from the land in dispute. Consequently, it filed a civil suit No. 885 in the Court of learned Sub-Judge First Class, Rohtak, on November 15, 1958. In this suit, it was alleged that the Dohli, tenure of Bawa Kehri Nath had come to an end and the possession of the petitioners was illegal and unlawful. The petitioners resisted this suit but later on persuaded the Panchayat to treat them as its own tenants. Consequently the Panchayat passed a resolution and accepted the petitioners as its own tenants on payment of annual rent of Rs. 105/- only. The petitioners brought these facts to the notice of the learned trial Judge who dismissed the suit of the Gram Panchayat on November 16, 1959, by holding that the petitioners were tenants under the Panchayat and not trespassers. This judgment was affirmed in appeal.

The Gram Panchayat, Ketwal, respondent No. 1, filed an application u/s 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), on the ground that the petitioners were in unauthorised occupation of the land and so liable to be ejected therefrom. The petitioners urged before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Gohana, who was seized of this matter that they were the tenants under the Gram Panchayat and so they could not be regarded as being, in unauthorised possession of this land The Assistant Collector, Gehana, vide his order dated December 30, 1966, Annexure '' B '' held that the petitioners were in unauthorised possession of the land and liable to be ejected therefrom. The petitioners went in appeal before the Collector who vide his judgment dated May 3, 1967, observed as under :--

The learned counsel for the appellants has invited my attention to Ex. R. I, certified copy of the order of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Rohtak, dated 16th November, 1959. The Court while deciding issues Nos. 1 and 3 has emphatically observed. ''There is thus overwhelming evidence on record in favour of the defendants that they are in cultivating possession of the suit land as tenants. Even the plaintiff''s evidence led to that conclusion. There is not an iota of evidence to show that the defendants are trespassers.'' This suit was filed by the Gram Panchayat, Katwal, against the present appellants for their dispossession.

He came to the conclusion that the possession of the petitioners was not unauthorised and so they could not be ejected u/s 7 of the Act. On further appeal, the Commissioner, Ambala Division, has reversed this order dated May 3, 1957, passed toy the Collector. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Commissioner dated December 12, 1967, Annexure ''D'' in this petition. Section 7(2) of the Act lays down that an Assistant Collector of the First Grade is competent to order the ejectment of any person who is in wrongful or unauthorised possession of land forming part of the shamlat deh of a particular village Rule 19 of the Rules framed under this Act deserves to be noticed and it reads as under :--

Section 19 : For purposes of section 7 of the Act a person shall be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation of any land in shamlat Deh.

(a) ... ... ...

(b) where he being an allottee, lessee, or grantee has, by reason of the determination or cancellation of his allotment, lease or grant in accordance with the terms in that behalf, there in contained, ceased whether before or after the commencement of the Act, to be entitled to occupy or hold such land in Shamlat Deh ; or

(c) where any person authorised to occupy any land in Shamlat Deh has whether before or after the commencement of the Act--

(i) sublet in contravention of the terms of allotment, lease or grant, without the permission of the Panchayat or of any other authority competent to permit such sub-letting the whole or any part of such land in ShamlarDeh ; or

(ii) otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms express or implied, under which he is authorised to occupy such land in Shamlat Deh, Explanation : For purposes of clause (a), a person shall not merely by reason of the fact that he has paid any rent be deemed to have entered into possession as allottee'' lessee or grantee.

A reading of sub-rule (b) shows that possession of a tenant becomes unauthorised if the grant made in his favour is terminated in accordance with the conditions of the grant. Sub-rule (c) lays down that the possession of the tenant would become unauthorised if he sub-lets the land under his tenancy or if he acts in contravention of any the express or implied terms of the grant. The cumulative effect of these provisions is that a tenant cannot be thrown out of the land in his possession u/s 7 of the Act at the mere whim and sweet will of the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat has to establish that the tenant has contravened any of the terms of the grant. In the instant case, the petitioners were accepted as tenants on this land on payment of Rs. 105/- per annum. It was nowhere alleged before the domestic tribunals by the Gram Panchayat that the petitioners were in arrears of rent. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioners were either in unauthorised or wrongful possession of the land. Consequently, the authorities under the Act could not exercise jurisdiction u/s 7 of the Act to order their ejectment. I may also observe that a Gram Panchayat by passing a mere resolution at any time cannot terminate a lawfully constituted tenancy. Take for Instance the case of a tenant who cultivates the land leased out in his favour and grows a valuable crop. The Gram Panchayat cannot in a unilateral manner terminate the tenancy just before the time when the crop would be ripe for harvesting. The tenancy created in favour of the petitioners was a yearly tenancy for an unlimited period. So long as they continue to pay the rent, they cannot be ejected u/s 7 of the Act. The respondents could have recourse to remedies which were available to them under the general law, if they were so advised.

For the reasons mentioned above, I allow this petition with costs and quash the order dated December 12, 1967, passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division. Respondent No. 1 will pay the costs which are assessed at Rs. 300/-.