Back
2006 Supreme(SC) 863
2006(7) Supreme 637
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
A.K. Mathur and Tarun Chatterjee, JJ.
Gram Panchayat, Vill Haripura—Appellant
versus
The Commissioner, Ferozepur Division & Anr.—Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 433 of 2000
With
Civil Appeal No. 434 of 2000
Both Decided on 15-9-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Sushil Kumar Jain, H.D. Thanvi and Sarad Singhania, Advocates.
For the Respondent : V.C. Mahajan, Sr. Advocate Dhiraj and P.N. Puri, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
For lease of Shamilat deh land proper procedure has been prescribed and in the absence of the proper formalities being undertaken the voluntary deposit of the rent or even accepting the rent by the Gram Panchayat will not make that person a lawful tenant under the Gram Panchayat.
Headnote:Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1963—Section 8—Punjab Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973—Sections 3, 4 and 7—Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964—Rule 6(7)—Tenant on payment of rent—Simply someone has paid or deposited the rent with the Gram Panchayat voluntarily after unauthorisedly occupying the Gram Panchayat land, he would not be deemed to be a tenant—A lawful tenant is one who has been admitted as tenant after following due procedure of law—In revenue records it was recorded that respondent was a tenant on payment—It was further observed that after Gram Panchayat became the owner it was receiving the rent from respondents, therefore, Gram Panchayat accepted them as tenants—Application filed by the Gram Panchayat for ejectment of respondents from the land on ground that Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land—Collector ordered eviction holding that respondent was in unauthorised possession of land—However, Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector and held that as per the Jamabandi, respondent had been shown as Gair Marusi paying lagan—Whether Division Bench of the High Court was justified in accepting reasoning of the Commissioner—(No)—Unless proper lease is granted in the manner provided in the Rules till that time simply because someone has paid rent that would not entitle him to claim as a tenant.
Held : A particular method has been prescribed that how lease to be executed as per Rule 6. Therefore, in this view of the matter, we are of opinion that unless proper lease is granted in the manner provided in rule 6 of the Rules till that time simply because someone has paid rent that would not entitle him to claim as a tenant. In the absence of statutory provisions and rules thereunder, it is difficult to accept that since the rent had been deposited with the Gram Panchayat that would make them tenants. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the Commissioner, Firozepur Division and affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be sustained. We are unable to understand the reasoning of the Division Bench to ignore the Full Bench judgment on the ground that in the aforesaid case the lease was granted year to year basis. The question is not the grant of lease on year to year basis. The question is whether the Gram Panchayat has recognized the contesting respondent as a tenant or not. Simply someone has paid or deposited the rent with the Gram Panchayat voluntarily after unauthorisedly occupying the Gram Panchayat land, he would not be deemed to be a tenant. This would be mockery of law. A lawful tenant is one who has been admitted as tenant after following due procedure of law. It is not one man show of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat that he can surreptitiously take someone as a tenant without following the procedure under the rules, in case the Sarpanch or any Panch inducts someone as a tenant without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules then such induction of the person will not be authorised or lawful and the Gram Panchayat will not be bound by that. In fact for lease of Shamilat deh land proper procedure has been prescribed that the land has to be auctioned and proper document has to be executed and it has to be authenticated. In the absence of the proper formalities being undertaken the voluntary deposit of the rent or even accepting the rent by the Gram Panchayat will not make that person a lawful tenant under the Gram Panchayat.(Para 6)
JUDGMENT
A.K. Mathur, J.—Both these appeals involve common questions of law & fact therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.
2. For convenient disposal of these appeals, the facts given in C.A.No.433 of 2000 are taken into consideration.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.7.1998 passed by learned Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The Division Bench disposed of C.W.P. No.11059 of 1998 and C.W.P.No.11066 of 1998 both by this order. The Division Bench took the view that by virtue of Section 8 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1963, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1963) tenancy does not come to an end on change of ownership or even on the death of the land owner. It was also held that the appellants became the owner of the disputed land and the contesting respondents were tenants. This finding of fact was given on the basis of the jamabandi i.e. revenue records. In jamabandi it was recorded that the respondent was a tenant on payment of Rs.64/- per kila sal tamam i.e. for one year. It further observed that after the Gram Panchayat became the owner it was receiving the rent from the contesting respondents, therefore, the Gram Panchayat accepted them as tenants. This was contested by the Gram Panchayat and it was submitted that such voluntary deposit of rent by occupier of land cannot be deemed to be tenant. In this connection, the Full Bench decision in the case of Gram Panchayat, Village Haripura vs. Commissioner, Ferozepur & Ors. reported in 1989 Punjab Law Journal 221 was placed before the Division Bench. The Division Bench distinguished this case and dismissed the writ petition holding that the decision in the case of Gram Panchayat, Haripura (supra) was with regard to tenancy on year to year lease basis and after expiry of the lease by efflux of time tenancy had come to an end. Aggrieved against this order of the Division Bench present special leave petition was filed and leave was granted and it was registered as appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view taken by the Division Bench is erroneous and Full Bench decision squarely covers the present case on facts as well as law.
3. Brief facts of this case are that an application was filed by the Gram Panchayat, Haripura through its Sarpanch under Sections 4 & 7 of the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 against the contesting respondent for his ejectment from the land situated within the revenue estate of the village Haripura on the ground that the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land in question and the contesting respondent was cultivating the land unauthorisedly and the respondent has not vacated the land in question despite request and the respondent be ordered to pay Rs.2933.60 as rent for use and occupation of the land in dispute. The respondent on being summoned appeared and was given an opportunity to file his reply. Both the parties were directed to place evidence in support of their respective pleas. The Gram Panchayat produced Sh. Badasukh, Panch and Nathu Ram, Sarpanch and respondent produced Ramesh Gupta, Ahlmed of court of E.M., Abohar Sh. Krishan Murari Clerk and Sh. Gurdev Singh Patwari Halqe Haripura. It was submitted before the Collector that there is no valid record produced by the respondent to show that he has been cultivating the land with the consent of the Gram Panchayat therefore the Sarapanch of the Gram Panchayat has been authorised to file the present suit. It was prayed that the respondent be ejected from the land in question. On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondent that the rent for the land in question has already been paid by the respondent and that the respondent has been cultivating the land as a tenant at will under the Gram Panchayat since very long time. It was also contested by the Gram Panchayat that mere entry of the respondent in the revenue record as a tenant from
