IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
L.P.A. No. 63 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: March 31,2009
Jitender and others (sons of Hawa Singh) ................ Appellants
Versus
Gram Panchayat, Bidhal, and another ..................... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh
Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate
for the appellants.
....
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.
The appellants have filed this LPA against the judgment dated
8.2.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge vide which the orders dated
November 11,1980 passed by the Collector, Sonepat, have been set aside
and Hawa Singh (father of the appellants) has been ordered to be evicted
from the suit land.
Briefly the facts of the case are that Gram Panchayat, Bidhal,
filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands
(Regulations) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the
Assistant Collector Ist Grade wherein it was averred that land measuring 40
Kanals 3 Marlas (the details of which have been given in the judgment of
the learned Single Judge) is in the ownership of Gram Panchayat, Bidhal,
and has been mutated in the name of the Gram Panchayat vide mutation
No.1148 of 1972. It was averred that Hawa Singh (father of the appellants),
[ 3 ]
L.P.A. No. 63 of 2009 (O&M)
has been in unauthorised occupation over the suit land since 1972 and is in
possession without any lease, allotment or grant and, hence, Hawa Singh is
liable to be evicted from the suit land.
The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gohana, vide his judgment
dated 6.6.1980 after recording the evidence of both the parties came to the
conclusion that Hawa Singh has remained in unauthorised occupation over
the suit land since 1972 and, accordingly, ordered his ejectment.
Hawa Singh preferred an appeal before the Collector, Sonepat,
against the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gohana. The
Collector, Sonepat, vide judgment dated November 11,1980 held that a
person who has been shown to be a tenant Gair Marusi in the revenue
records, his possession cannot be termed as unauthorised and that such a
person cannot be evicted under Section 7 of the Act. Accordingly, the
Collector, Sonepat, set aside the judgment passed by the Assistant Collector
Ist Grade, Gohana.
The Gram Panchayat, Bidhal, filed writ petition No. 1788 of
1981 which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge and the orders
passed by the Collector have been set aside. Consequently, the learned
Single Judge has ordered the eviction of Hawa Singh. It is this judgment
that is under challenge before us.
Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, learned counsel, has contended that the
Hawa Singh is an old Gair Marusi tenant over the land in dispute and,
hence, his possession is not unauthorised. It has further been averred that
earlier the land was Banjar Kadim and he had brought it under cultivation
and that the suit land does not belong to the Gram Panchayat which has no
[ 3 ]
L.P.A. No. 63 of 2009 (O&M)
right to receive any rent from him. It was further averred that the land in
dispute belongs to Pana Bhogge and he being a shareholder and having been
in continuous possession for the last many years is entitled to remain in
possession.
Although the appellants have raised the aforementioned
questions of fact but they have not led any evidence to establish that the
land was leased out to Hawa Singh by the Gram Panchayat or that Hawa
Singh was paying rent to the Panchayat. No rent receipts have been
produced by the appellants. Apart from the above, the appellants have not
been able to show that the Gram Panchayat had even inducted Hawa Singh
as tenant over the suit land and handed over the possession of the same to
him.
On the other hand, the Gram Panchayat has proved that the suit
land is in their ownership since 1972 and the same has also been mutated
vide mutation No.1148. In the said mutation, it has also been entered that
Hawa Singh is in unauthorised possession over the suit land. The
unauthorised possession of Hawa Singh has been without the permission of
the Gram Panchayat. From the aforementioned overwhelming evidence in
favour of the Gram Panchayat the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside
the order passed by the Collector, Sonepat, dated November 11,1980 and
the decree passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gohana, dated
6.6.1980 has been restored. As Hawa Singh was in unauthorised
occupation of the suit land which belongs to Gram Panchayat, Bidhal,
therefore, he has rightly been ordered to be evicted from the suit land.
[ 4 ]
In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal and the
same is dismissed.
( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA )
JUDGE
( UMA NATH SINGH )
JUDGE
31.3.2009
rupi