BHAN SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner Bhan Singh, a resident of village Roorka in Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar, seeks a writ of certiorari quashing an order (Annexure 'B' to the petition) passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division on the 6th of November, 1967, ordering eviction of the petitioner under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the petitioner who claimed to be a lessee under the Gram Sabha of the said village (respondent No. 2) had at no stage acquired the status of such a lessee.

(2.) The relevant facts are admitted on all hands and may be stated here. One Nand Lal was appointed a khidmatguzar of the village dharmsala to which was attached the land in dispute. The petitioner was inducted on to the land by Nand Lal during his office as khidmatguzar in kharif 1961 since when the petitioner continued to be in possession thereof. Claiming to have become the owner of the land under the provisions of the Act, respondent No. 2 brought a suit for possession of the land against Nand Lal. The suit was decreed and in the year 1964 respondent No. 2 was able to secure symbolical possession of the land through execution proceedings, it being admitted that the petitioner was in actual possession thereof as a tenant. Later on there was civil litigation between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 wherein the latter admitted that the petitioner was originally a tenant under Nand Lal Khidmatguzar and that later on respondent No. 2 had stepped into the shoes of Nand Lal.

(3.) The petition must succeed inasmuch as the impugned order is based on an assumption of fact which is wholly incorrect. It is common ground between the parties that Bhan Singh was inducted on to the land as a tenant by Nand Lal and that, after respondent No. 2 succeeded in getting a decree for possession of the land against Nand Lal, all that it actually achieved was a symbolical possession of the land with the petitioner continuing thereon as a tenant. When the Commissioner says, therefore, that "Bhan Singh, at no stage, became the lessee under the Panchayat," he is obviously mis-stating facts about which there could not be any dispute; so that the very basis of the impugned order falls to the ground. Before the petitioner could be ejected from the land under the provisions of the Act, it had to be shown that the lease created by Nand Lal in his favour had come to An end, either by efflux of time or otherwise. There being no evidence that such was the case, the occupation of the land by Bhan Singh could not be deemed to be unauthorised.