OM PARKASH Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR IST GRADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether authorities under the Village Common Lands Act have the jurisdiction to direct ejectment/eviction of Om Parkash, the petitioner, who was admittedly inducted in the land in dispute under a lease for a period of 10 years on August 6, 1977. The authorities on the basis of copy of Jamabandi produced held that the land was shamlat deh and as such vested in the Gram Panchayat and, thus, obviously after expiry of the period of lease, the possession of the petitioner was unauthorised and directed his ejectment. Copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1952-53 has been shown, In the column of ownership, the entry is shamlat deh hasab hissa malkiat munderja shajra nasab. This Jamabandi does not show that the land was being used for common purposes, as the land was shown to be in possession of the proprietor. A specific question was raised before the authorities concerned that the land did not vest in the Panchayat as it was not used for the common purposes. However, since mutation was sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat showing it as shamlat deh it was taken that the property vested in the Panchayat. The approach of the authorities does not seem to be correct. There may be other land vesting in the Gram Panchayat than that vested as shamlat deh under Section "2 (g) of the Village Common Lands Act. The remedy under Section 7 of this Act would only be available if the land was shamlat deh as defined under Section 2 (g) of the Act and as such had vested in the Panchayat. Otherwise for other land owned by the Gram Panchayat, appropriate remedy would be either by filing a suit or to proceed under the provisions of Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act. Such a question was considered in the Gram Panchayat v. Sardara Singh, (1988-2) 94 P. L. R. 515. After referring to several previous decisions, it was held that the authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act could only act if the land was shamlat deh as defined under Section 2 (g) of the Act and as such vested in the Panchayat; otherwise remedy was under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act. That was a case of Punjab.

(2.) SHRI Hooda, Advocate for the respondents has argued that since ownership of the Panchayat could not be questioned by the tenant and the tenant being in unauthorised occupation of the land after expiry of the lease, ejectment cannot be challenged in this writ petition. It is not necessary to deal with this contention in detail. We are of the view that a tenant cannot question the title of a lessor and for all intends and purposes the tenant would remain as such till he is legally ejected from the land. Even a trespasser is to be ejected in accordance with law. Present is a case of a lessee whose lease has already expired and is in possession. He can be ejected from the land in accordance with law, either by filing a suit or under the provisions of Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery)! Act.

(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders Annexures P/2 and P/3 passed by the authorities under the Village Common Lands Act are quashed. There will be no order as to costs.