The court affirmed that lands designated as Shamlat deh cannot be claimed by lessees post lease expiry, emphasizing the distinction between lease and allotment under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act.

JUDGMENT :

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1. The contentions and the factual matrix involved in the captioned Special Leave Petitions would reveal that the bone of contentions in them, essentially is one and the same viz., whether the subject lands were Shamlat deh, allotted (if at all allotment was there) on quasi-permanent basis to displaced person(s) or whether they were Shamlat deh otherwise transferred to any person by sale or by any other manner whatsoever after commencement of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). An answer to that question in the affirmative would fetch protection to such allotment or transfer by sale or by any other manner, statutorily by virtue of the amendment of Section 2(g)(ii-a) of the Act. Hence, the fate of most of these Special Leave Petitions is dependent mainly on that question. Needless to say, that some allied questions may also crop up for consideration. Special Leave Petition No.8687 of 2012 is taken as the lead case and wherever any allied question also crops up and if found relevant, we will refer to such question(s) appropriately and also deal with them. Before dealing with the lead case and also the contentions, it will not be inappropriate to state that a scanning of all the above Special Leave Petitions would reveal that all the aforesaid cases have been pending for a long time and in fact, some of them were pending for more than three decades.

Special Leave Petition No.8687 of 2012

2. One Dalip Ram, son of Shri Uttam Ram filed the captioned Special Leave Petition seeking leave to challenge the judgment dated 18.10.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.5865 of 1992. As per the same, the High Court rejected his challenge against the order dated 28.08.1991 passed by the Financial Commissioner in Appeal No.110 of 1998 carrying challenge against the order dated 19.01.1988 in case No.544/1987 of the second respondent in an application filed by the third respondent-Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Act. The second respondent as per order dated 19.01.1988 allowed the aforesaid application for eviction of the petitioner herein from the subject land specifically described in the application. In the application, the third respondent-Gram Panchayat stated that the petitioner herein/the respondent therein, is in unauthorised possession of the subject land belonging to the Gram Panchayat which was leased out to his father, even after the expiry of the lease period. Further, it was stated that even thereafter, he had neither handed over its possession to the Gram Panchayat nor paid lease money therefor. As per the order dated 19.01.1988, the second respondent found that the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the subject land thereby, rejecting the contra claim over ownership by the petitioner and finding that the petitioner herein/respondent therein is in unauthorised possession of the subject land, ordered for his eviction. In the appeal filed by the petitioner herein, the Commissioner confirmed the order, rejecting the contentions of the petitioner that the land in question was Banjar Qadim and spending huge amounts he converted it to cultivable land and that the Panchayat has got no connection with the said land. The authorities concurrently found that in the Jamabandi for the year 1963-64, the subject land was recorded as Shamlat Deh and the petitioner’s father was shown as its Chakotadar (lessee). Upon his death, the petitioner stepped into his shoes and continued its possession, even after the expiry of the lease period unauthorisedly. The Commissioner has also concurred with the findings that the petitioner had failed to hand over the possession of the land to the Gram Panchayat and also pay Chakota (rent). The petitioner challenged the aforesaid orders dated 19.01.1988 and 28.08.1991 unsuccessfully before the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.5865 of 1992 and the same was originally dismissed by the High Court