DHIAN SINGH Vs. THE DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this order, we shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1195, 1283, 5936 and 9072 of 2012, as they involve adjudication of similar questions of fact and law. The petitioners, in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1195, 1283 and 5936 of 2012 pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of orders passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, Chandigarh, Hoshiarpur, holding that the land in dispute, vests in the Gram Panchayat, whereas the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 9072 of 2012 prays that orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner holding that the land, in dispute, vests in the Gram Panchayat, may be set aside. A brief narrative of the facts of each case would be appropriate.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners submits that as land measuring 20 Kanals - 07 Marlas is recorded, as "Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Zare Khewat" and in the column of cultivation, in possession of one Sarno, in jamabandis for the years 1943 -44 and 1952 -53, the land, in dispute, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. It is further submitted that Sarno was in possession as an occupancy tenant and upon enactment of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "1952 Act"), was conferred proprietary rights. The land, in dispute, was inherited by his widow Rano Devi, who sold the land to the petitioners, vide registered sale deed dated 29.4.1980. During his life time, Sarno inducted one Babu Ram as a tenant, who, in turn, inducted one Mela Ram as a sub tenant. After purchase of the land, the petitioners filed a suit, for ejectment under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1887 Act"), before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Dasuya. The suit was decreed on 31.12.1981. Mela Ram filed an appeal. The Collector, Hoshiarpur, dismissed the appeal but held that though the land is recorded in the name of 'Gram Panchayat', in jamabandi for the year 1961 -62, but as Sarno was an occupancy tenant, he became a proprietor under Section 3 of the 1952 Act and upon his demise, his proprietary rights, devolved upon Rano Devi, who then sold the land to the petitioners. The Collector, thus, held that the petitioners, and not the Gram Panchayat, are owners of the land, in dispute.

(3.) COUNSEL for the Gram Panchayat submits that order dated 15.6.1982, passed by the Collector, under the 1887 Act, holding that Sarno was an occupancy tenant, who perfected his occupancy rights as owner, is irrelevant as the Gram Panchayat was not impleaded as a party to these proceedings. It is further submitted that a declaration of proprietary rights, vis -a -vis, an occupancy tenant can only be granted by a civil court. Furthermore, a finding on a question of ownership, recorded in summary proceedings of eviction, is not binding, before the forum, conferred with power to decide a question of ownership, i.e., the Collector, exercising power under Section 11 of the 1961 Act. The order passed by the Collector, in eviction proceedings, under the 1887 Act, does not bind the Gram Panchayat or authorities, under the 1961 Act. It is further submitted that as Sarno is recorded, in possession, as a tenant, he is not protected by Section 4(3)(ii) of the 1961 Act and his legal heirs had no right to sell the land, admittedly, owned by the Gram Panchayat. It is further argued that the "expression" "Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Zare Khewat", denotes the "Shamilat Deh" of village Behamawa, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur.