RUGHA AND KHIRAJ Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After the coming into force of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , (hereinafter called the Act), the Gram Panchayat of village Dholpalia, tehsil Sirsa, filed an application under Section 7 of the Act for being put in possession of the land in dispute. This application was contested by the petitioners, on the allegation that they had been in possession for over thirty years and they were tenants under the co-sharers and were, therefore, not liable to eviction. Other objections were also raised. The objections of the petitioners were dismissed by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Sirsa, by order dated 27th February, 1967 (Annexure A) and the appeal of the petitioners was also dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Sirsa, by order dated 26th December, 1967. Their second appeal which was decided by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, by order dated 14th October, 1969, also met the same fate, and being dissatisfied with this order the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

(2.) On behalf of the petitioners it is first of all contended that the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat had not been authorised to file the application for their eviction and that this being the case the Secretary had no authority to move the Assistant Collector under Section 7 of the Act. This argument was also raised before the learned Commissioner who, on perusal of the record, came to the conclusion that a resolution had been passed by the Gram Panchayat in which the killa numbers of the land of which the possession was sought were mentioned though the names of the persons occupying those killa numbers were not mentioned. It was noticed that some of the names were mentioned but not all. In view of the fact that killa numbers had been mentioned in the resolution of the Panchayat, the learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that the Secretary had the authority to file the application against the petitioners also. The learned counsel for the petitioners has been unable to persuade me that the view taken by the Commissioner was erroneous. The identity of the property having been clearly given in the resolution and it having been clearly stated therein that unauthorised occupants be got evicted by filing applications before the Assistant Collector, the resolution would clothe the Secretary with authority to file applications against all the persons who were occupying the land mentioned in the resolution.

(3.) The second argument urged on behalf of the petitioners is that their case was covered by sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act and that they were not liable to eviction as they were occupancy tenants or at least had been cultivating the land for more than twelve years. This contention was raised by the petitioners before the Assistant Collector and it was found as a fact that they were not in possession for more than twelve years. This finding was then confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil). The record indicated that the petitioners had been in possession since 1958 and in view of this the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) rightly held that the possession of the petitioners was not for twelve years or more. This finding was not challenged before the Commissioner and even otherwise no material has been brought on the record to show that this was an erroneous view or that the findings had been arrived at without considering the evidence on the record. In fact, in the petition it was not clearly stated that the petitioners had been entered as occupancy tenants in the revenue record or that they held a similar status. It was further not mentioned in the petition that the petitioners had been in cultivating possession for more than twelve years without payment of rent or payment of charges not exceeding the land revenue and cesses payable thereon. In the absence of clear assertions on these points, it is not open to the petitioners to contend that they were entitled to the benefit of sub-section (3) of Section 4. Before the Commissioner this point was not pressed and the main argument was that as they were tenants they could not be evicted except under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. In this Court this argument has not been pressed and even otherwise it is without merit. Under Section 7 of the Act once the land is vested in the Panchayat the Assistant Collector is bound to put the Panchayat in possession unless sub-section (3) of Section 4 comes in the way. This being not the position in the present case, the fact that the petitioners were tenants of the land under co-sharers would be of no help and would afford no defence to the application under Section 7 of the Act.