IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, Kuldeep Tiwari, JJ.
Gurcharan Singh and Others - Petitioners - Appellant
Versus
Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and Another - Respondents - Respondent
CWP-2290 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 02-05-2023
Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 - Eviction of petitioners - Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1973 - Act of 1961 - Sections 2(g), Rule 16(ii) of the Rules of 1949 - The court discussed the definitions of 'Shamilat deh' and 'Abadi deh' under the Act of 1961, the ownership and management rights vested in Gram Panchayat, and the implications of the revenue record entries. The court concluded that the eviction petition under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1973 was valid based on the ownership and nature of the land.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent Gram Panchayat sought eviction of the petitioners from the land under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973. The petitioners challenged the eviction orders before the statutory authority and subsequently through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' arguments regarding the nature of the land and the maintainability of the eviction petition were not well-founded. It concluded that there was no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it.
Issues: The issues involved the nature of the land, ownership rights, and the maintainability of the eviction petition under the relevant Acts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the definitions of 'Shamilat deh' and 'Abadi deh' under the Act of 1961, and the ownership and management rights vested in Gram Panchayat as per the revenue record entries.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the eviction orders against the petitioners.
KULDEEP TIWARI, J.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Through a petition instituted before the ld. Collector concerned, under Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1973’), the respondent No.2- Gram Panchayat, sought eviction of the petitioners from the petition land(s). The petition (supra) was accepted by the ld. Collector concerned, vide its order dated 05.09.2019, thereby ordering for the eviction of the petitioners from the petition land(s).
2. Feeling aggrieved by the eviction order (supra), the petitioners threw a challenge thereto, by filing a statutory appeal before the learned statutory authority, i.e. respondent No.1. However, the appeal so preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2020.
3. Consequently, the petitioners, through the instant writ petition, challenge the concurrently made orders against them by the statutory authorities below.
SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petition land(s) has been recorded as “Gair Mumkin Abadi” in the revenue record, thus the petition land(s) is excluded from the definition of “Shamlat Deh”, as defined in Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1961’). Therefore, he argues against the maintainability of petition (supra), whereon, the impugned order(s) was passed. Rather, he argues that a lawful eviction petition was to be filed by invoking the provisions of Section 7 of the Act of 1961, instead of a petition being instituted under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1973. Apparently, in the ownership column of the Jamabandi drawn in respect of the petition land(s), for the years 2012-2013, the petition land(s) is entered therein as “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan va Digar Haqdaran Arazi Deh Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewatdar”, in the column of possession, the petition land(s) is described as “Maqbuja Malkan”, besides, is recorded as “Gair Mumkin Abadi” in the column of nature of land thereof.
5. On the basis of the above entry occurring in the column of ownership, in the Jamabandis relating to the petition land(s), the learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that in terms of Rule 16(ii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1949’), the said assigned revenue term to the petition land(s), in the column of ownership makes the Gram Panchayat concerned to become vested with rights of management and control only, however, the ownership in respect of the above designated land(s), does not vest in the Gram Panchayat concerned, rather it continues to vest in the village proprietary body concerned. Therefore an argument is posed before this Court, by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that since the Gram Panchayat is not the owner of the petition land(s), therefore it was incapacitated to institute a petition even by invoking the provisions of Section 7 of the Act of 1961. The provisions of Rule 16(ii) of the Rules of 1949 stand extracted hereinafter:-
The court emphasized the importance of providing prima facie evidence to support claims of lease or adverse possession in land dispute cases.
The court emphasized the importance of providing reliable evidence to rebut presumptions based on revenue records and upheld the authority of revenue authorities to pass eviction orders in cases of u....
The court established that the Gram Panchayat has the right to claim ownership of land classified as 'Shamilat Deh' under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, and private claims must be substantiated....
The legal point established is that lands described as 'abadi deh' in the revenue records cannot be vested in the panchayat, and the lawful stakeholders holding possession have the legally permissibl....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.