Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, Harsh Bunger, JJ.
Jagta Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CWP No. 4501 of 1987
Decided On : 05-02-2024
Eviction - Land Dispute - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - Section 7 - Summary: The court discussed the eviction petition filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the 1961 Act against the petitioners. The court analyzed the maintainability of the eviction proceedings, repugnancy between Acts, and the petitioners' claim of adverse possession. The court upheld the eviction orders based on the lack of evidence supporting the petitioners' claim.
Fact of the Case:
The Gram Panchayat filed an eviction petition against the petitioners claiming unauthorized possession of the land. The petitioners contested, claiming lease from the Government and adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the eviction orders, stating that the petitioners failed to prove their claim of lease or adverse possession.
Issues: Maintainability of eviction proceedings, repugnancy between Acts, and petitioners' claim of adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the petitioners did not provide evidence to support their claim of lease or adverse possession, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the eviction orders.
Key Points: - The petitioners were evicted under Section 7 of the 1961 Act; eviction upheld due to lack of prima facie evidence of lease or adverse possession (!) (!) . - The court requires demonstrating prima facie title/possession; mere claims of lease or adverse possession without supporting records are insufficient (no material showing government allotment/lease) (!) (!) . - The court discusses maintainability of eviction petitions, repugnancy between acts, and held that petitioners failed to prove their rights under the 1961 Act; eviction orders affirmed (Annexures P-1 and P-2) (!) (!) . - The judgment references prior determinations that repugnancy between Central Evacuee Property Act and Punjab Act is resolved in favor of Punjab Act’s prevailment for Shamlat-deh lands within Punjab (!) - (!) . - The appellate and constitutional avenues under Articles 226/227 were pursued but petition was dismissed, sustaining eviction (!) (!) . - The petitioners’ reliance on Hans Raj’s case was rejected; no material to prove Section 4(3) protections or government allotment (!) . - The court clarifies the procedural pathway under Section 7(1) and its provisos, emphasizing the need for prima facie evidence of title before proceeding to possess Shamilat Deh lands (!) - (!) . - The matter is disposed with eviction orders upheld and no relief granted to petitioners (!) - (!) .
Judgment
Mr. Harsh Bunger, J.
Petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the eviction order dated 18.03.1986 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer (here-in-after called as ‘DDPO-cum-Collector’), Ludhiana, upon an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as ‘the 1961 Act’) filed by respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat, Rahimabad Kalan, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana.
Petitioners further seek quashing of order dated 28.11.1986 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Joint Director, Panchayat, Punjab, Chandigarh (exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Act, 1961); whereby, the appeal preferred by them against the eviction order dated 18.03.1986 has been dismissed.
2. Briefly, Gram Panchayat Village Rahimabad Kalan, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana, filed an eviction petition under Section 7 of the 1961 Act against the petitioners seeking their eviction from the land in dispute on the plea that the Gram Panchayat is the owner of land in question and the petitioners herein are in its unauthorized possession.
3. The afore-said eviction petition was contested by the petitioners herein on the plea that the petitioners had taken land on lease from the Government for a period of ten years and had made the said land cultivable in the year 1961 and since then, they have been in cultivating possession thereof. It is further submitted that on the expiry of the allotment period, the petitioners had also applied to the Rehabilitation Department at Jalandhar for the purchase of said land and that matter is sub-judice as yet and the rights, claim, title and interests of the petitioners stand unaffected. It was stated that the petitioners had no relations with the Gram Panchayat as that of landlord and the tenant cultivator as they never paid any rent/batai to the Gram Panchayat and no auction was ever held as regards this land by the Gram Panchayat and neither any notice was served upon them by the Gram Panchayat for vacating the disputed land.
4. The learned Collector-DDPO, Ludhiana vide order dated 18.03.1986 (Annexure P-1), ordered eviction of the petitioner from the land in dispute.
5. Being dissatisfied with the afore-said eviction order dated 18.03.1986 (Annexure P-1), the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Joint Director, Panchayat, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Act, 1961); however, the said appeal came to be dismissed along with other appeals vide order dated 28.11.1986 (Annexure P-2).
6. In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders are wrong, illegal and arbitrary and the same have been passed without appreciating the facts/evidence placed on record as well as the law on the issue. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land in dispute is not covered under the definition of Shamilat Deh as the said land was allotted to the petitioners under the Punjab (Utilization of Lands) Act, 1949 (in short ‘the 1949 Act’) with the assurance by Government that they would get the land on nominal price and made owners thereof. It is, therefore, contended that the action of respondents under Section 7 of the 1961 Act is wholly without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the land in question, is covered under the provisions of Package Deal Property (Disposal) Act, 1976. It is further submitted that the right, title and interest of the petitioners are protected under Section 4(3)(1) and Section 4(3)(2) of the 1961 Act. Petitioners have placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by this Court in case titled as Hans Raj and others vs The State of Punjab and others (Civil Writ Petition No.2280 of 1971, decided on 04.03.1980). Another submission has been raised on behalf of the
The court emphasized the importance of providing prima facie evidence to support claims of lease or adverse possession in land dispute cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of the Collector under Section 11 of the 1961 Act to decide disputes related to the ownership of land, and ....
The court emphasized that mere claims of ownership are insufficient; prima facie evidence of title must be established to invoke eviction proceedings under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 4(3)(ii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961 in determining the possession and rights of ....
The court clarified the application of Section 7 of the Act, 1961, and emphasized the importance of consistent and substantiated claims in land ownership and possession disputes.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
