SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(P&H) 113

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.R.Majithia and A.S.Nehra JJ.
Ram Piari
Versus
Joint Director Panchayats Punjab Exercising The Powers Of Commissioner
Civil Writ Petition No. 956 of 1984,
Decided On : JANUARY 29, 1993

The Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 and the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 are special Acts that provide for the eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises and Shamilat deh land, respectively. Both Acts provide similar procedures for eviction, including the right to appeal.

Headnote:

EVICTION ACT - PUNJAB PUBLIC PREMISES AND LAND (EVICTION AND RENT RECOVERY) ACT, 1973 - PUNJAB VILLAGE COMMON LANDS (REGULATION) ACT, 1961 - Whether the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (Eviction Act) or the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (Common Lands Act) applies to the eviction of an alleged unauthorized occupant of Shamilat deh land.

Fact of the Case:

The Gram Panchayat filed an application under Sections 5 and 7 of the Eviction Act before the Collector against the petitioners, alleging that they were unauthorized occupants of Shamilat deh land. The Collector ordered eviction, and the Commissioner dismissed the appeal. The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the orders, arguing that the authorities under the Eviction Act were not competent to evict them from the Shamilat deh land.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that both the Eviction Act and the Common Lands Act are special Acts and that the Eviction Act does not exclude the application of the Common Lands Act. Unauthorized occupants can be evicted under both Acts. The court found that the petitioners were in unauthorized occupation of the land and dismissed their writ petitions.

Issues: 1. Whether the Eviction Act or the Common Lands Act applies to the eviction of an alleged unauthorized occupant of Shamilat deh land. 2. Whether the petitioners were in unauthorized occupation of the land.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Eviction Act and the Common Lands Act are special Acts that provide for the eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises and Shamilat deh land, respectively. 2. Both Acts provide similar procedures for eviction, including the right to appeal. 3. The petitioners failed to show that the procedure of ejectment under Section 5 of the Eviction Act was in any way less favorable or more harsh than the procedure under the Common Lands Act. 4. The petitioners failed to establish that they were the owners of the land and were, therefore, in unauthorized occupation of the land.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions with costs.

Judgment

A.S. NEHRA, J.

1. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 956, 1039, 1040, 1320, 3529, 3638, 3639, 3640 and 3641 of 1984 involve a common question of law and fact. Therefore, we shall dispose of these writ petitions by this judgement.

2. The primary question of law that has been referred by the learned single Judge for consideration of the Division Bench is as to whether the Punjab Public Pramises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short, "the Eviction Act") is the statute or the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (for short, "the Common Lands Act) that would cover a case of eviction of an alleged unauthorized occupant of Shamilat deh land.

3. The Gram Panchayat, respondent No. 3, filed an application under S. 5 and 7 of the Eviction Act before the Collector against the writ petitioner/writ-petitioners. The Collector ordered eviction on 22-4-1981. The appeal against the order of the Collector was dismissed by the Commissioner on 8-6-1983. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, the petitioner/petitioners filed these writ-petitions for quashing the impugned orders on the ground that the Authorities under the Eviction Act were not competent to evict the petitioner/petitioners from the shamilat deh land.

4. Mr. Gurdial Single Jaiswal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the petitioners could be evicted only under S. 7 of the Common Lands Act.

5. "Premises" and "Public premises" have been defined under the Eviction Act as under :

"Premises means any land, whether used for agricultural or non-agricultural purposes, or any building as part of a building and includes:-

(i) the garden, the grounds and out-house, if any, appertaining to such building or part of a building; and (ii) any fittings affixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof."

Public premises means any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the State Government and includes any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of - (i) any Municipal Committee, Notified Area Committee, Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samiti, Panchayat or Improvement Trust;..."

6. Unauthorized occupants of public premises have been enumerated in S. 3 of the Eviction Act, which reads as under:-

"3. Unauthorised occupation of public premises. - For the purposes of this Act, a person shall be deemed to be in authorized occupation of any public premises. -

(a) Where he has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, entered into possession thereof otherwise than under and in pursuance of any allotment, lease or grant; or

(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 therein contained, ceased, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, to be entitled to occupy or hold such public premises; or

(c) where any person authorized to occupy any public premises has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act. - (i) sublet, in contravention of the terms of allotment, lease or grant without the permission of the State Government or of any other authority competent to permit such subletting, the whole or any part of such public premises, or (ii) otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms, express or implied under which he is authorized to occupy such public premises. Explanation For the purpose 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."

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that admittedly the land, in dispute, had been entered in the revenue record as shamilat deh. The Punjab Legislature had in 1961 enacted the Common lands Act which is a complete Code with regard to the village common lands popularly known as shamilat deh. A






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top