MOHINDER SINGH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine shall dispose of CWP No.1750 of 2008 and COCP No.707 of 2009.

(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the impugned orders dated 26.04.2005 of the Collector (Annexure P-6) and 19.12007 of Deputy Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, Gurdaspur (Annexure P-7) in proceedings initiated under Section 5 read with Section 7 (2) of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 seeking eviction of the petitioner from the land measuring 71 kanals 14 marlas as described in the application.

(3.) Mr. D.S. Bali, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Aman Vashisht, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that Sharan Singh was a tenant of the aforementioned land. In fact, he was on ?rd batai of the entire piece of land and on his demise, tenancy was inherited by the petitioner and Balbir Singh, being sons. Balbir Singh also died in the year 1976 and, therefore, the petitioner had been cultivating the suit land and paying, regularly, rent to the Gram Panchayat. In the year 1984, Gram Panchayat attempted to dispossess the petitioner illegally and forcibly, which necessitated the petitioner to file the suit for permanent injunction which was decreed on 04.12.1984, holding therein that Gram Panchayat cannot forcibly dispossess the petitioner except in due course of law. Despite that Gram Panchayat attempted to dispossess the petitioner, thus, another civil suit on 11.06.1999 was filed. The tenancy of the petitioner was never terminated. The petitioner was never declared to be in unauthorized possession. In this regard, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the definition of "Premises" and "Public Premises" as per the provision of Section (d) and (e) of Section 2 of 1973 Act and as well as of "tenant" in Punjab Tenancy Act and submits that in fact, predecessor-interest of the petitioner was inducted as tenant vide Resolution dated 207.1964 (Annexure P-1), wherein the aforementioned land in question was given to Sharan Singh on rent on ?rd batai. Thus, the Collector did not have jurisdiction to try the matter. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the written statement of the State to contend that status of the petitioner and predecessor-in-interest as batai Terhara is not denied, in essence, entry as Gair Dakhilkar in Column No.10 has also not been denied and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be in illegal and unauthorized occupation.