GRAM PANCHAYAT DHANDRIAN Vs. CHANAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the present respondents had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the present petitioner Gram Panchayat of village Dhandrian and respondent No. 4 Thakur Dass from dispossessing them forcibly from the suit land on the allegations that they constitute Joint Hindu Family. Chanan Singh (plaintiff No.4) had taken the land in question on lease from the said Gram Panchayat for the year 1981-82 and the plaintiffs came into possession of the land. For the subsequent year lease was taken by Sukhdev Singh (plaintiff No. 2). For the third year i.e. 1983-84 Joginder Singh (plaintiff No. 3) took the land on lease. Thus the plaintiffs' contention was that they were in possession of the said land as tenants under Gram Panchayat and they could not be dispossessed forcibly from it.

(2.) The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that from the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the Theka of the land used to be auctioned yearly and different persons used to occupy the land on yearly basis and the possession of such person was merely that of a licensee for a fixed term and, therefore, he was not entitled to any injunction and the learned Courts below have wrongly held that Joginder Singh plaintiff had a prima facie case. In support of his contention he has cited Chandu Lal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1978 AIR(Del) 174. That ruling has no application to the present case. That case refers to the auction of the licence of a Kiosk for a fixed term by the Delhi Municipal Corporation. In those circumstances, it was held that where a licence was validly revoked, the licensee had no right to retain the possession and that he would not be entitled to temporary injunction to defend his possession. In the present case the parties' case is that lease of the land used to be auctioned yearly. Therefore, the person who took the lease for a particular year cannot be said to be a licensee. The learned counsel for the respondents also referred to rule 6 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 which refers to the auction of lease of agricultural land in shamilat for a period not exceeding 2 years. Even if the lease is for a fixed period, on the expiry of the period the possession of the person in possession will become that of a tenant holding over.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon Gram Sabha of Village Chhajalwadi v. Bhajan Singh, 1984 PunLJ 7. The facts of that case are practically similar to the facts of the present case. The Gram Sabha who was defendant in that case, had pleaded that the lease in favour of the plaintiff had expired by efflux of time and, therefore, he had no right to retain possession and was consequently estopped from suing. The learned trial Court accepted the plea of Gram Sabha and held that the plaintiff was estopped from filing a suit and was not entitled to the injunction prayed for and consequently dismissed the suit. The plaintiff filed appeal and the Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and held that the principle of estoppel was not applicable to the case. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. Gram Sabha came to the Court in second appeal and it was held :-