ARJUN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
LAWS(P&H)-2013-8-1050
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on August 21,2013

ARJUN SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)By filing this writ petition, one more attempt has been made by the petitioner, to drag the Gram Panchayat into unnecessary litigation.
(2.)Petitioner's ejectment was ordered on 22.10.2009, as per provisions of Sections 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973. Petitioner's appeal was dismissed on 22.11.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner came to this Court. His writ petition was also dismissed. It is stated by the petitioner that liberty was granted to him to file an application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short, 1961 Act), to get question of title decided. To support above said contention, copy of that order has not been placed on record. It is also on record that before the above said litigation, petitioner filed a Civil Suit on 6.5.1999 against the Gram Panchayat, which was dismissed on 3.8.2000. Copy of the judgment has been shown to us at the time of arguments. As per order passed by the Cvil Court, the petitioner has admitted that he has taken the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat. Relevant portion of the judgment of the Civil Court reads thus:-
"After having considered the argument and having gone through the file, I have no hesitation to say that the act and conduct of the plaintiff debars him from getting the relief of injunction against the defendant. In the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded that he is in possession of the suit land and the defendant has no right or interest in the property, therefore, the Gram Panchayat cannot dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. But when the plaintiff appeared as witness, he has admitted in his cross examination that he has been taking the suit land on rent from the Gram Panchayat. He has further stated that he has filed the present suit, when the Gram Panchayat was to take the possession of the suit land from him. He has also admitted that the Gram Panchayat has right to give the land to the highest bidder. From the averments made by the plaintiff, it comes clear that the suit land was under possession of the plaintiff being a tenant under the defendant Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant has no right or interest in the suit property, is proved to be false. The perusal of Ex.D2, D3, D4, D5 and Ex.D7 the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat showed that the plaintiff had been taking the suit land on rent from the Gram Panchayat and moreover, this fact has been admitted to be correct by the plaintiff in his cross examination. Therefore, it is proved that the suit land was on lease with the plaintiff from year to year. The defence of the defendant-Gram Panchayat that the lease period of the plaintiff had come to an end, when the plaintiff has filed the present suit, is also proved to be correct because the plaintiff himself has admitted that he has filed the present suit, when the Gram Panchayat asked him to hand over the possession of the suit land. The averments made by the plaintiff that the Gram Panchayat is not the owner of the suit property and rather it is the ownership of Bachat Malkan are not to be looked into, because the same were never pleaded by the plaintiff. Further, even if it is presumed that the suit land is the ownership of village proprietors, in that case also, the plaintiff has no right to retain the possession of the suit land, because he has no right in the property, as he is not the original inhabitant of the village and the same has been admitted to be correct by the plaintiff in his cross-examination. Prior to filing the present suit, the plaintiff has been taking the suit land on rent from the Gram Panchayat. Meaning thereby, he has admitted the defendant to be his landlord. Therefore, now he cannot deny the right of the Gram Panchayat to auction the suit land and to give it to the highest bidder. The matter would have been different, if the plaintiff had pleaded that he is the proprietor of the village and has share in the suit land being its proprietor. The plaintiff who is outsider and who has been taking the suit land on rent for a number of years, cannot claim any vested right in the property in question. He was the tenant on yearly basis and his tenancy automatically came to an end in 1999, when the suit land was auctioned by the Gram Panchayat to Sucha Singh son of Ladda Singh. The contention of the ld. Counsel of the plaintiff that the auction conducted on 27.5.1999 is illegal, because the Gram Panchayat has no right to auction the land, has no force because the plaintiff has admitted the Gram Panchayat to be his landlord and moreover, he is not the proprietor of the village. Therefore, he has no right to retain the possession of the suit land and he cannot deny the title of the landlord. Once the lease period of the plaintiff came to an end, he becomes trespasser on the suit land, therefore he is not entitled for any relief of injunction. In view of this discussion, this issue is decided against the plaitniff."

(3.)It has also come on record that the petitioner is not a right holder in the village. He continued as a lessee of the Gram Panchayat for number of years. If it is so, he cannot claim any vested right in the property. He was held to be a tenant on yearly basis. It was also found, as a matter of fact, that lease in favour of the petitioner came to an end in the year 1999. Thereafter, the land was auctioned in favour of one Sucha Singh. In civil suit, it was alleged by the petitioner that auction in favour of Sucha Singh was illegal. That contention was also rejected by the Civil Court. Once, above finding has come on record, thereafter, there was no justification with the petitioner to continue to drag the Gram Panchayat into litigation without any right vested in him as was held by the Civil Court vide judgment dated 3.8.2000.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.