Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 1820
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
MAHESH GROVER, MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, JJ.
Mange Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CWP No.18411 of 1994 (O&M)
Decided On : 31-07-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. M.S. Rana for Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Ms. Kirti Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's claim of being a Bhondedar was not supported by evidence, and his attempt to claim tenant-at-will status was rejected.
Headnote:
Bhondedar - Ejectment from Shamilat Deh - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Section 7 - 4
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to quash the order of ejectment passed by the Collector, Faridabad, which was dismissed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. The petitioner claimed to be a Bhondedar and occupied the land in dispute in the same capacity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to prove that the petitioner or his predecessors were accorded the status of Bhondedars regarding the land in dispute. The court also rejected the petitioner's claim of being a tenant-at-will.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's status as a Bhondedar and the legality of the orders of ejectment passed by the Authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's claim of being a Bhondedar was not supported by evidence, and his attempt to claim tenant-at-will status was rejected. The court also referred to the definition of Bhondedar as a grant of rent-free land in exchange for secular services.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the impugned orders of ejectment passed by the Authorities.
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 29.09.1994 (P-4), passed by respondent No.2-Collector, Faridabad (for short 'Collector'), vide which, his appeal against the order of ejectment dated 09.06.1994 (P-3), passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Faridabad (for short 'A.C. 1st Grade') has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.4-Gram Panchayat Bahin, Tehsil Hathin, District Faridabad (for short 'Gram Panchayat') filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'Act') for ejectment of the petitioner from Shamilat Deh, measuring 32 Kanals, comprised in Khewat No.1786, Khatoni No.1926, Khasra No.106, 2 (8-0), 9 (8-0), 12 (8-0) and 19 (8-0), situated at Mauza Bahin being in unauthorized possession.
Upon notice, the petitioner filed his reply to the petition under Section 7 of the Act and denied the allegations of unauthorized possession and claimed to be a Bhondedar. It was next submitted that his predecessors were the Bhondedars over the land in dispute in lieu of services rendered by them for maintenance of Bara Bangla and now, he is occupying the land in dispute in the same capacity.
The parties produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective claims.
After hearing both sides, A.C. 1st Grade vide order dated 09.06.1994 (P-3) came to the conclusion that the petitioner is in unauthorized possession of the land in dispute and directed for his ejectment as well as to pay the penalty to the Gram Panchayat at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per acre, per annum.
Feeling aggrieved against the above order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, but the same was dismissed by the Collector, vide order dated 29.09.1994 (P-4).
3. Now both the aforesaid orders, passed by the Authorities, are under challenge in the present writ petition.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is occupying the land in dispute as a Bhondedar and prior thereto, his predecessors were continuing as such in lieu of the services rendered by them for maintenance of Bara Bangla. Thus, in view of the exception contained under sub-section 3 of Section 4 of the Act, the land in dispute has not been vested in the Gram Panchayat and consequently, the impugned orders of ejectment, passed by both the Authorities below, are not legally sustainable. It is further argued that as per revenue record i.e. Jamabandi for the year 1976-1977 (P-1), in the column of cultivator, the name of his father-Kanhiya s/o Ramji Lal has been recorded as Gair Marusi and as such, his possession cannot be termed as unauthorized; rather the same can be construed as a tenant-at-will and as such, the ejectment is not warranted under Section 7 of the Act.
On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that there is no material available on record to substantiate that either the petitioner; or his predecessors were the Bhondedars of the land in dispute. It is next contended that the petitioner has never claimed to be a tenant-at-will before the Authorities below and it is only the first time before this Court that such a plea has been raised and thus, the same is liable to be rejected. It is also submitted that both the Authorities below have recorded concurrent findings of fact regarding the unauthorized possession of the petitioner and thus, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. Heard both sides and perused the paper-book.
Before proceeding with the matter, it is necessary to extract Section 4 of the Act (applicable to State of Haryana) and which reads as under:-
"4. Vesting of rights in Panchayats and non-proprietors.-(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any agreement, instrument, custom or usage or any dec
