Back
1989 Supreme(P&H) 231
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Punchhi, Ujagar Singh and A.P.Chowdhri JJ.
Gram Panchayat, Village Haripura
Versus
Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur
Civil Writ Petition No. 2726 of 1984,
Decided On : MARCH 14, 1989
A lease of Shamlat Deh land, which is payable in advance for one year only, is determined by efflux of time at the end of the year, and the tenant becomes an unauthorized occupant under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973.
Headnote:
PUBLIC PREMISES - UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION - PUNJAB PUBLIC PREMISES AND LAND (EVICTION AND RENT RECOVERY) ACT, 1973 - SECTIONS 3, 4, 7 - LEASE OF SHAMILAT DEH LAND - RENT-IN-CASH - TENANCY-AT-WILL - DETERMINATION OF LEASE BY EFFLUX OF TIME - APPLICABILITY OF ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Panchayat land, classified as Shamlat Deh, was illegally transferred to a Trust, which then leased the land to various individuals. The Gram Panchayat filed eviction petitions against the tenants under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (the Act). The tenants claimed that they were not unauthorized occupants and that their tenancy was established by entries in the Jamabandi, which showed them as tenants-at-will paying fixed cash rent.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the tenants were unauthorized occupants under the Act because their lease had been determined by efflux of time. The court interpreted the Jamabandi entries to mean that the rent was payable in advance for one year only, and that the lease was renewed for one year only if the Panchayat accepted rent thereafter. The court also held that the tenants' claim of tenancy-at-will was not supported by any evidence of the terms of the lease.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenants were unauthorized occupants under the Act. 2. Whether the Jamabandi entries established a tenancy-at-will.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the tenants were unauthorized occupants under the Act because their lease had been determined by efflux of time. The court interpreted the Jamabandi entries to mean that the rent was payable in advance for one year only, and that the lease was renewed for one year only if the Panchayat accepted rent thereafter. 2. The court held that the tenants' claim of tenancy-at-will was not supported by any evidence of the terms of the lease.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Panchayat's petitions and ordered the eviction of the tenants. The court also directed the tenants to file an undertaking to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the land within three weeks or on the expiry of two months, whichever was earlier.
M.M.PUNCHHI, J.
1. These cases, which are five in number, reveal the typical land-grab resorted to by people occupying panchayat lands which were meant for the general benefit of the rural inhabitants of the village.
2. In these five writ petitions, Nos. 2726, 2774, 3797, 3798 and 3799 of 1984, there is a common petitioner, Gram Panchayat of village Haripura, tehsil Fazilka, district Ferozepur. On the opposite side are arrayed three respondents, two being officials and the third contesting one claiming to be a tenant of the panchayat, resisting eviction under the provisions of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Since the facts giving rise to each of them are identical, we would take a broad conspectus of the things emerging from one of the cases.
3. The land covered in all the five cases was Shamlat Deh as the expression was known to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Shamlat Law ). Such land by virtue of the Shamilat Law vested in the gram panchayat. The owners of the shamilat land, however, adopted a device in writing a memorandum of association of Haripura Trust Committee, Haripura, and had it registered. It was mentioned therein that the General Committee shall consist of 21 members who are the owners of the shamilat which has been transferred to the Trust for the objects mentioned therein. In this way, as goes the statement of Gurdev Singh Patwari in the files of these cases which have been summoned by us, the land was mutated in the name of the Trust in the year 1954. Shortly thereafter, apparently under the same device, the contesting respondents herein were inducted as tenants by the Trust. The Shamilat Law was substituted by a new enactment named as Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, and Shamilat Deh was categorically defined under section 2(g). It was clarified that Shamilat Deh as defined in the latter Act of 1961 would have been the shamilat deh as under the Shamilat Law. Undoubtedly, the lands in question were recorded as Shamilat deh prior to their mutation in favour of the Trust and had to be continued as shamilat deh. Therefore, in the year 1957, a corrective mutation was entered and the land was remutated in favour of the Grain Panchayat. While the land stood mutated in the name of the Trust, the contesting respondents claim that their tenancy began under the Trust. In the year 1965-66, consolidation operations took place and the contesting respondents claim that they continued being recorded as tenants under the Gram Panchayat and that in the Jamabandi for the year 1970-71 each of them is recorded as a tenant on payment of fixed cash rent.
4. The Gram Panchayat-petitioner filed five separate petitions against the contesting respondents before the Collector, Fazilka, under sections 4 and 7 of the Act. The tenant-respondents, inter alia, raised the plea that they were not unauthorised occupants and as such the provisions of the Act were not applicable to their case. Further it was pleaded, though not specifically but inferentially, that the Jamabandi for the year 1970-71 established their tenancy and they could only be ejected in due course of law and not by employing the provisions of the Act. The Collector, however, ordered their ejectment vide order Annexure-P-2 in each respective case. The appeals of the tenants in each respective case were allowed vide orders Annexure-P-4 by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, taking the view that on the face of the entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1970-71 Exhibit PA there remained no further need to prove the status of the tenants since they were recorded as tenants under the Gram Panchayat and a presumption of truth was attached to the entries in the Jamanandi, for which there was no rebuttal. Consequently, he took the view that the tenants could not be evicted by invoking the provisions of the Act a
