HAR NAND Vs. COMMISSIONER AMBALA CANTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are not in dispute and may be briefly stated. 96 kanals and 14 marlas of land described in the revenue records as shamilat deh and situated in village madina Gindhran, Tehsil Gohana, District Rohtak, was held by one Hari Dass as a dohlidar for a long time and as let out by him to the petitioner as a tenant. In the year 1947 Hari Dass above mentioned left the place and has not been heard of since then. On the 1st of January, 1968, the Gram Panchayat of village Madina Gindhran (respondent No. 4, hereinafter to be referred to as the Panchayat) presented to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Gohana, an application under Section 7 of the punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the second Act) praying for the ejectment of the petitioner from the land on the ground that he had "acquired its unauthorised possession for the last 5 years". The petitioner having admitted before the Assistant Collector that Hari Dass had not been heard of since 1947, the application was accepted by the Assistant collector who held that the dohli in question came to an end "immediately after the death of Hari Dass dohlidar" and the dohli interest reverted to the original owner so that all rights in the disputed land thereupon vested in the Panchayat. An appeal taken by the petitioner to the Collector and a second appeal presented by him to the Commissioner also failed.

(2.) THE orders of the Assistant Collector, the Collector and the Commissioner (Annexures "d","e", and "f" respectively to the petition) have been assailed before me only on the following grounds, although some other grounds of attack were also listed in the petition: (a) No proceedings under Section 7 of the Second Act could have been taken unless the petitioner was in wrongful or unauthorised possession of the land in dispute. (b) The possession of the petitioner was neither wrongful nor unauthorised in as much as the dohli tenure held by Hari Dass is still alive. (c) In any case the dohli tenure was alive on the 9th January 1954, when the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as the First Act) came into force. Though the land was described as shamilat deh in the revenue records, even then it did not fulfil the definition of "shamilat deh" within the meaning of that expression as given in clause (g) of Section 2 of the Second Act which definition, because of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Second Act, had to be read into the First Act also. (d) The Panchayat was neither a natural nor a juristic person and could not therefore, file any proceedings under the Second Act so that the impugned orders were without jurisdiction.

(3.) THERE is no, nor can be any dispute with the proposition covered by ground (a)but the provisions of Rule 19 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)Rules, 1964 which govern proceedings under the Second Act, in so far as they are relevant, may be quoted here: "19. For purpose of Section 7 of the Act, a person shall be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation of any land in shamilat deh:- (a) where he has, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, entered into possession thereof otherwise then under and in pursuance of any allotment, lease or grant by the panchayat; or (b) where he being an allottee, lessee or grantee, has, by reason of the determination or cancellation of his allotment or lease or grant in accordance with the terms in this behalf therein contained, ceased whether before or after the commencement of the Act, to be entitled to occupy or hold such land in shamilat deh;or * * * * * * * * *" these provisions made it clear that if the entry of a person on land is under a grant which comes to an end, his occupation of the land becomes unauthorised as from the date of the termination of the grant and it goes without saying that the occupation of the land by those whom he may in the meantime have brought on the land either as lessees or licensees would also assume a similar character. It follows that if the dohli tenure held by Hari Dass had come to a termination on the date when the application under Section 7 of the Second Act was filed by the panchayat, his occupation must be deemed to be unauthorised so that the proceedings held in pursuance of the application would not suffer from the infirmity of lack of jurisdiction.