CWP No.18311 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.18311 of 2007 Date of decision:07.07.2010 Shri Krishan Lal ...... Petitioner VERSUS Commissioner, Ambala Division Ambala and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA. Present: Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate for respondent no.4. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA.J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 13.05.2003, 10.04.2007 and 18.07.2007, passed by the the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Yamuna Nagar, the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar and the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, respectively. The Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for ejectment of the petitioner by alleging that the petitioner is in unauthorised possession of the land measuring 18 kanals and 7 marlas, since 1998-99. The petitioner opposed the application by asserting that as the jamabandi for the year 1974-75 and all subsequent jamabandies record that the petitioner is in possession as a tenant, on payment of Rs.200/- per annum per hectare as rent, he cannot be ejected, in proceedings under Section 7 of the Act. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Yamuna Nagar, CWP No.18311 of 2007 -2- ordered the ejectment of the petitioner by holding that he has failed to support his plea of tenancy by reference to any 'pattanama' or 'receipt of rent'. It was further held that the entry in recording the petititioner as a tenant is factually incorrect. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal. The Collector, Yamuna Nagar, dismissed the appeal on 10.04.2007. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a revision before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, which was dismissed on 18.07.2007. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 7 of the Act applies to persons in unauthorised possession of shamilat deh. The Gram Panchayat has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the correctness of entry in the jamabandies that records that the petitioner is in possession as a tenant on payment of Rs.200/- per annum per hectare as rent. A presumption of truth attaches to an entry in a jamabandi and therefore, the authorities under the Act, have committed an error in ordering the petitioner's ejectment. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the entry in the jamabandi was manipulated by the petitioner, apparently in collusion with revenue authorities. The petitioner has failed to produce any lease deed or evidence disclosing payment of rent to the Gram Panchayat or any other material to suggest that the land was ever leased out to him by the Gram Panchayat. It is further argued that leases of Panchayat property are governed by Rule 6 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 and panchayat property can only be leased by way of auction. In the absence of any evidence of an auction, lease deed or rent receipt, the petitioner cannot claim that he is a lessee of the Gram Panchayat, in CWP No.18311 of 2007 -3- perpetuity. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The petitioner's claim as a tenant is based upon entries in jamabandies from the year 1974-75, that record that he is in possession as a tenant on payment of rent @ Rs.200/- per annum per hectare. If true, these entries would reflect a tenancy and would bar the Gram Panchayat from filing an application under Section 7 of the Act. An entry in a revenue document recording possessory or proprietary rights cannot be read to confer title whether possessory or propriettary in the absence of any material to prove the source of such right. The entries in the present case are not supported by any lease deed, proceedings of auction, a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat leasing the land to the petitioner, or any evidence of payment of rent @ Rs.200/- per hectare per annum. Revenue entries by themselves do not confer or divest title as they are mere fiscal entries, recorded for the purpose of updating revenue records. It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner has failed to adduce any material to establish the source of these entries or the source of his possessory title, as a tenant. The entries recording the petitioner as a tenant therefore, cannot be pressed into service. It would require emphasis that a Gram Panchayat, is statutorily obliged to lease out its land in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Rule 6 of the Rules, namely by recording a resolution to lease out the land by way of a public auction followed by an auction for a period of two years. The petitioner has failed to produce any evidence that the land was leased out to him, much less in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules. In this view of the matter, the petitioner's claim that he is a tenant CWP No.18311 of 2007 -4- of the Gram Panchayat was rightly rejected by the Assistant Collector, the Collector and the Commissioner. The argument that the Assistant Collector, has arbitrarily imposed damages of Rs.10,000/- per hectare per annum, appears to be prima-facie correct. In the absence of any material as to the rate of rent or the nature and value of land, the Assistant Collector, could not have imposed the maximum penalty prescribed under the Act and should have confined the penalty to the minimum prescribed namely @ Rs.5,000/- per hectare per annum. In view of what has been held hereinabove, the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Yamuna Nagar, directing ejectment of the petitioner is affirmed but the penalty of Rs.10,000/- per hectare per annum is reduced to Rs.5,000/- per hectare per annum. The order passed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority are also affirmed. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. 07.07.2010 [RAJIVE BHALLA] shamsher JUDGE