CHARAN SINGH Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE RANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this judgment we dispose of two Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 489 of 1995 (Charan Singh v. Municipal Committee, Rania) and 490 of 1995 (Pritam Singh v. Municipal Committee, Rania), as both the appeals have arisen from one judgment dated 29th March, 1995 delivered by the learned single Judge by which he disposed of Civil Writ Petns/nos. 1677 and 1678 of 1987.

(2.) THE Municipal Committee, Rania, Tehsil and District Sirsa (hereinafter called 'the Municipal Committee') and the respondents of these two L. P. Ss. filed petition for eviction of the appellants from the land measuring 82 Kanals 6 Marias comprised in Rectangle No. 110, Killanos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 situated in village Rania, Tehsil and District Sirsa, and for recovery of damages for the use and occupation of the aforesaid land with effect from 1-4-1978 till the date of the filing of the petition at the rate of Rs. 1375/- per acre under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (for short 'the 1972 Act') alleging that the appellants were in unauthorised possession of the land in dispute and that they had retained it by unlawful means since 1-4-1978. Prior to this the appellants got this land on Chakota (Rent)which expired on 31-3-1978. After the expiry of the period, they ought to have delivered the possession of the land to the Municipal Committee, but they failed to do so. The possession of the appellants is unauthorised and they are liable to pay compensation for the use and occupation of the land at the rate of Rs. 1375/- per acre. This application was resisted by the appellants on the main plea that the petition under Sections 5/7 of the 1972 Act was not maintainable and that they are cultivating the land as tenants Gair Maurusi since long and that the Municipal Committee has no right, title or interest in the said land. The Collector Sirsa by declining the defence of the appellants passed the ejectment order dated 26-9- 1983 by holding that the appellants took this land on Chakota (Rent) for 1977-78 only and after the expiry of the said period, their possession has clearly become unlawful and they are liable to be ejected.

(3.) THE petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were contested by the respondents and it was, inter alia, pleaded that mutation dated 3-1-1984, which had been sanctioned in respect of 660/793 shares in favour of the Custodian, had been quashed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 532 of 1985 on 27-8-1985. As a result of that Gram Panchayat, Rania, was declared to be the owner of the whole of the land. It was further averred by the respondents that the petitioners (now appellants) were in unauthorised occupation of the land. The land in dispute was given to the appellants by the Gram Panchayat for a period of one year, which expired on 31-3-1978. It was also pleaded by the respondents that the appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction, praying that the defendant-Municipal Committee be restrained from interfering with the possession of the appellants in respect of the land measuring 82 Kannals 6 Marias and in that suit it was never pleaded by the appellants that the suit land was exclusively owned by the Gram Panchayat and that it was let out in Kharif 1975. In the meanwhile the Custodian became the owner of 660/793 share of the suit land and the Gram Panchayat was left with only 133/793 share. The share of the Gram Panchayat alone was transferred in favour of the Municipal Committee vide mutation dated 3-4-1979. The said suit of the appellants was dismissed in default by the Trial Court on 2-2-1984. With the dismissal of the suit the appellants are estopped from contending that the Municipal Committee was not the owner of the land in dispute or that they had not accepted the lease of the land for one year from the Gram Panchayat. The respondents pleaded further that the land measuring 46 Kanals 8 Marias was auctioned in favour of Pritam Singh appellant belonging to the Harijan community for a period of one year from 15-4-1977 to 15-4-1978 at the rate of Rs. 1375/- per acre. In order to clarify the position with regard to ownership, the respondents, inter alia, pleaded that by notification dated 21-3-1974 whole of village Rania, which was having a Gram Panchayat, was constituted into a Notified-Area Committee under the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, vide notification Annexure R/a-5. On the constitution of the Notified Area Committee; the Shamilat Deh land, which had earlier vested in the Gram Panchayat, came to vest in the Notified Area Committee. Some litigation ensued between the Gram Panchayat and the Notified Area Committee. On 1-10-1978 the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution for handing over the immovable property to the Notified Area Committee, Rania (for short 'the Committee' ). The respondents also pleaded that initially in the Jamabandi for the year 1972-73 the Gram Panchayat was shown to be the owner. In pursuance of the decision of this Court in C. W. P. No. 2401 of 1968 decided on 15-5-1973 it was held that the evacuee interest of the Muslims on their migration to Pakistan vested in the Custodian and the land in dispute could not become part of the Shamilat Deh in the village. As a result of that 660/793 share was transferred in favour of the Central Government. This decision was reversed by the Apex Court in the case Gram Panchayat, Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh, AIr 1985 SC 1394. As a result of that whole land vested in the Gram Panchayat, Rania, and vide notification dated 21-3-1974 the Government of Haryana declared that the local area of village Rania shall be considered to be within the municipal limits. As a result of that the land in dispute came in the ownership of the Notified Area Committee constituted under the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. Vide notification dated 16-9-1987 statuts quo ante was restored and the Gram Panchayat was again constituted. However, vide notification dated 28-9-1992 the Gram Panchayat of village Rania was again abolished and the area came under the ownership of the Municipal Committee, Rania. While tracing out the history of the land regarding its ownership, the respondent-Municipal Committee pleaded that originally the land vested in the Gram Panchayat but later on it vested in the Municipal Committee which was entitled to evict the appellants from the land in dispute. Finally it was pleaded that vide mutation No. 13166 the entire land has been entered in the name of the Municipal Committee, Rania, in place of the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat at one point of time in the writ petitions filed application under Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. for implead-ing it as a respondent. The prayer was granted and separate written statement was filed by it claiming itself the owner of the property, but later on nobody appeared before the learned single Judge on behalf of the Gram Panchayat in order to support its allegations made in the written statement.