PRITAM SINGH Vs. THE COLLECTOR SIRSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the orders of the Assistant Collector, Grade I. Dabwali, dated September 25, 1979 (Annexure P. 1) and the Collector, Sirsa; dated January 18, 1980, (Annexure P. 2); directing the ejectment of the Petitioner under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) from the land measuring 12 kanals and 5 marlas comprising killa Nos. 4/2 (019), 7/2(6 -0) and 14/2 (5 -6), situated in village Khokhar, Tahsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.

(2.) THE facts, in this case, are not in dispute. The Petitioner, who is in cultivating possession of the land, in dispute, claims himself to be in possession thereof since the year 1938 -39 continuously without payment of rent, and consequently, claims that he is entitled to the protection under Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act, as by virtue of the said provision, the land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat, Respondent No. 3 Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act is reproduced below:

(3.) THE only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that the word "persons" in Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act includes the predecessor -in -interest as well of a person who is in cultivating possession of the land at the relevant time, that is, December 26, 1953. In order to attract the said provisions, the person concerned must be in cultivating possession of shamilat deh on the date of commencement of the 1953 Act, and he must be in such cultivating possession for more than 12 years on such commencement without payment of rent or on payment of charges not exceeding the land revenue and cess payable thereon. Though it has been found as a fact that the Petitioner has been in possession since the year 1942 -43, yet he has been denied the protection of Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act, on the ground that he was not in cultivating possession for more than twelve years at the time of the commencement of the Act. In any case, the Petitioner claims that the possession prior to the year 1942 -43, has been that of his father, Nand Singh, since the year 1938 -39, as evidenced by jamabandi for the year 1938 -39 and, therefore, his possession will also be deemed to be the possession of the Petitioner; he being his successor -in -interest. If that is so, then the possession of the Petitioner will be for more than 12 years as required under the provisions of Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act. The correctness of the following observations made in Atma Ram's case (supra) have been challenged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, - -