KARTAR SINGH Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a resident of village Karme, Tehsil and District Ferozepur, where he obtained a lease of small plot of inferior evacuee agricultural land comprised in Killa Nos. 8/3, 4, 8 and 9. A contiguous plot of inferior evacuee land bearing Killa Nos. 8m/12, measuring 7 Kanals 11 Marlas, was lying unallotted, which the petitioner alleges to have occupied in Kharif 1964 unauthorisedly. According to him, he brought this plot of land under plough, but the entries in the Khasra Girdawaris for Kharif 1964 and Rabi 1965 were "Banjar Qadim Taradadi", that is Banjar Qadim land being brought under cultivation by effort. In the return it has pointed out that the entry reads as "Banjar Qadim Thur". 'Thur' is a kind of land which is of very inferior quality. It is further stated that the petitioner took possession of this plot of land unauthorisedly in Rabi 1966, and did not sow any crop therein earlier thereto. That plot of land was sold by the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Ferozepur, on March 15, 1967, by public auction and the same was purchased by respondent 4. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Settlement Commissioner with powers of Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, against the auction held by respondent 3, but that appeal was dismissed on April 25, 1967. The petitioner thereafter, filed a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Jullundur, respondent 1, which was also dismissed on May 7, 1968. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition in this Court challenging the said orders. The written statement has been filed by the auction-purchaser, respondent 4, and none of the official respondents has cared to file any written statement.

(2.) It has been found by respondents 1 and 2 in their orders that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the plot of land in dispute since Rabi 1966, and therefore, has no legal right to retain the possession of the land. The entries in the Khasra Girdawaris for Kharif 1964 and Rabi 1965 have been misread and mis-stated by the petitioner. It is stated by the petitioner in the writ petition, that he paid nine times the land revenue to the Government, and was, thus a lessee under the Government. This fact is denied by respondent 4 and the petitioner has led no proof before me in support of his allegation. No written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 3 and therefore, it cannot be held to be proved that the petitioner was granted any lease of the plot of land in dispute by any competent authority. If any such lease had been granted an entry to that effect would have found place in the Khasra Girdawari or other revenue records. The petitioner cannot also take advantage of the press-note allowing an option to the occupants of the land to purchase the same as the crucial date for being in possession was stated to be on or before Rabi 1965. It has been found in the present case that the petitioner was not in possession of the disputed land prior to Rabi 1966, and that he never made any application for its purchase. He is, therefore, not entitled even to purchase that land. The land was auctioned in March 1967, that is, when Rabi 1966 crop had yet to be harvested. The petitioner, thus, did not acquire any right to possess the land on the ground that he had made it cultivable by spending money or labour thereon. If the petitioner was anxious to purchase the land, he should have made a bid at the auction. Not having done so, he has no right to retain the land in his possession.

(3.) This Court, in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not aid an unauthorised occupant to retain possession of the land, he must show a legal right to retain that land in his possession. The petitioner has alleged in his petition that he is in unauthorised occupation of the land in dispute and has challenged the auction thereof by respondent 3. Since he has no legal right to the land, he cannot object to the public auction held by respondent 3. Even if his allegation is believed that he paid nine times the land revenue to the Government, it must have been for use and occupation of the land and not as a lessee from the Government, of which fact there is no proof on the record.