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

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1688

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.
Krishan & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 10826 of 2020
Decided On : 28-11-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, Mr. Ankur Mittal AAG, Haryana, Mr. Saurabh Mago DAG, Haryana, Mr. Rakshit Gupta, Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Priyavrat Prashar

The court affirmed the binding nature of eviction orders under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, rejecting jurisdictional challenges based on the Haryana Public Premises Act.

Headnote:(A) Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - Section 7(2) - Jurisdictional competence for eviction orders - The petitioners challenged eviction orders claiming lack of jurisdiction by authorities under the Act of 1961, arguing it should lie with the Collector under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972. The court found the argument frivolous due to the binding nature of previous orders and the absence of jurisdictional defects. (Paras 6, 8, 12)

(B) Finality of Eviction Orders - The court held that the eviction orders had acquired finality and binding effect following the dismissal of the revision petition, thus rejecting the belated challenge by the petitioners. (Paras 4, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were ordered to be evicted from certain lands by the statutory authorities under the Act of 1961. They challenged the eviction citing jurisdictional issues, claiming the authority to evict lay with the Collector under the Act of 1972. (Paras 1, 6)

Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioners' claims, affirming the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act of 1961 to issue eviction orders. (Paras 12, 13)

Issues: The main issue was the jurisdictional competence of authorities under the Act of 1961 versus the Act of 1972 regarding eviction orders. (Paras 6, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the previous eviction orders had finality and were valid as the jurisdictional argument raised was frivolous and belated. (Paras 8, 12)

Result: Petition dismissed.

Judgment

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

One Bhan Singh instituted an application under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961’) impleading thereins the encroachers, upon the pandhayat land(s) concerned. On the said application, a decision was made on 24.9.1997 (Annexure P-5), whereby the present petitioners, respondents therein were ordered to be evicted from the petition land(s).

2. The aggrieved judgment debtors filed thereagainst an appeal bearing No. 3/97/A. However, on the said appeal, a decision adversarial to the petitioners became recorded on 30.8.2000 (Annexure P-6).

3. Being aggrieved from Annexure P-6, the petitioners instituted a revision petition before the Revisional Court concerned. However, the said revision petition became dismissed in default thus through an order made thereons, on 9.5.2008 (Annexure P-7).

4. Since the dismissal in default of the revision petition (supra) did not result in the said order becoming strived to be recalled, nor when the said dismissal in default of the revision petition (supra) became challenged before this Court. Consequently, binding and conclusive effect rather is acquired by the verdict of eviction (supra), as became rendered in the year 2000, by the statutory appellate authority below.

5. The decree holder concerned, instituted an execution petition in the year 2015, seeking thereby the execution of the above binding and conclusive orders of eviction. The above execution petition resulted in warrants of possession becoming issued through an order, as enclosed in Annexure P-9.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners becomes aggrieved from Annexure P-9. He submits, that since the verdicts of eviction (supra), through for reasons (supra), have acquired a binding and conclusive effect, they are yet non est, as the statutory authorities below constituted under the Act of 1961, were not bestowed with any able jurisdiction to order for the eviction of the present petitioners from the petition land(s). He rests the above submission on the ground, that in the column of ownership, the Gram Panchayat concerned, is entered as owner. Resultantly, he argues, that in respect of the said entry, the jurisdictional competence to make a valid order of eviction, became rather vested in the Collector constituted under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act of 1972).

7. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the above made argument is not amenable for becoming accepted by this Court.

8. Primarily for the reason that the said argument became also raised before the statutory authorities below but the same became rejected. Therefore, when the concurrently made orders of eviction for reasons (supra) acquired conclusivity, and, finality in the year 2000. In sequel, the dismissal of the above motion by the statutory authorities below, and the same becoming agitated much belatedly before this Court, only after issuance of warrants of possession (Annexure P-9), does make the said raised argument to be completely frivolous, the same becoming abandoned with a prolonged duration of time, commencing from the year 2000, and, upto the institution of the instant writ petition before this Court.

9. Consequently, even if assumingly the jurisdictional competence to make valid order of eviction, became vested in the Collector constituted under the Act of 1972, yet there had to be sufficient evidence existing on record thus displaying, that in the revenue record, the disputed land(s) became entered as, jumla mushtarka malkan. In case, the said revenue entry exists in the revenue records, thereupon, it could be concluded by this Court, that after the consolidation officer, making a pro rata cut from the lawful estates of the estate holders concerned, thus his reserving the petition land(s) for the benefit of the entire village community, thereby making the Gram Panchayat concerned, to be the 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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top