R.S.A.No. 5061 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 5061 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.1.2011 State of Punjab and others ......Appellants Versus Charan Singh .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Satish Bhanot, Addl.A.G.Punjab. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Charan Singh filed suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. The case of the plaintiff was that he was landless agricultural worker and member of a scheduled caste category being Mazbhi Sikh. The land in question was “Nazool” land and was liable to be allotted to the plaintiff. After the expiry of the lease period, State wanted to eject the plaintiff from the suit land and initiated proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act. Plaintiff filed a writ petition in this Court and the R.S.A.No. 5061 of 2010 (O&M) 2 same was dismissed. Thereafter, plaintiff approached the Apex Court by way of SLP No. 8269 of 1994 and the same was accepted by the Apex Court. The name of the plaintiff was liable to be entered in column No.4 of the jamabandi. The land had been allotted to the plaintiff on an application moved by him to District Collector, Faridkot vide DRA No.195 dated 21.4.1999 but later on the mutation was rejected by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade vide order dated 12.8.1999. The defendants, in their written statement, averred that the suit land was not Nazool land. The possession of the plaintiff had been regularised qua 44 kanals 2 marlas of land. The name of the plaintiff had been entered in column No.5 in terms of the decision given by the Apex Court. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the order dated 12.8.1999 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Kotkapura rejecting the mutation No.326 is illegal, null and void? OPP. 2. Whether the order dated 9.9.1999 vide which the mutation No.328 was sanctioned is illegal, null and void? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the property in dispute? OPP 4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the injunction as prayed for? OPP 5. Relief. R.S.A.No. 5061 of 2010 (O&M) 3 The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.1.2007 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the District Judge, Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 16.8.2010 Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing learned State counsel, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Admittedly, Provincial Government was owner of the land in dispute and the fact that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land is also not in dispute. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit land was Nazool land and was liable to be allotted to members of Scheduled Caste category on payment of ninety times of land revenue as price of the land. The case of the defendants was that the suit land was not Nazool land. However, as per letter Ex.P-3 addressed by Under Secretary, Government of Punjab, Revenue Department to the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, the land was of Malkiati Sarkar after leaving 12000 Ghamaon of land to Raja Sahib, Faridkot, remaining land had been treated as Nazool land for the purpose of allotment to the members of Scheduled Caste under the provisions of Pepsu Nazool Land (Transfer) Rules, 1956. In these circumstances, learned Courts below rightly held that the suit land was Nazool land and the plaintiff being member of a Scheduled Caste category was liable to be allotted the said land. R.S.A.No. 5061 of 2010 (O&M) 4 The Apex Court in SLP filed by the plaintiff, as reproduced in para 7 of the judgment of the trial Court, has held as under:- It is now settled policy of the Government as enjoined under Article 46 of the Constitution and Directive Principles, particularly Articles 38 and 39 (b) and the Preamble of the Constitution that economic and Social justice requires to be done to the weaker Sections of the society, in particular to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to prevent them from social injustice prevention of all forms of exploitation. In the light of that constitutional objective of economic empowerment the Government have rightly taken the policy to assign the lease to the either to a cooperative society composed of the Scheduled Castes or individual members of the Scheduled Tribes members, as the case may be, in accordance with their policy then in vogue at the rate of Rs.20/- per acre or 90 times the land revenue, whichever is less. Under these circumstances, the appellants having been inducted into possession reclaimed the land and remained in possession after the expiry of the lease, the Government is required to regularize their possession and assign the lands in their possession in accordance with its policy. The appellants, therefore, are directed to R.S.A.No. 5061 of 2010 (O&M) 5 make necessary application within four weeks from today to the competent authority and the authorities are directed to regularize their possession imposing necessary conditions for their continuance in possession and enjoyment of the same in the light of the constitutional objective of rendering them socio economic justice putting restrictions on subletting or selling; all the relevant conditions in that behalf may be imposed so that they remain in possession and enjoy the same to improve their social and economic status as enjoined under the Constitution. The authorities also are directed to dispose of the applications within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the same. The appellants shall remain in possession until the regularization is done and shall enjoy the lands without any subletting or alienating thereof.” As per the said decision, the plaintiff moved an application to the competent authority and the possession of the plaintiff qua the suit land had been regularised. However, the name of the plaintiff had not been entered in column No.4 of the jamabandi but had been entered only in column No.5 of the jamabandi vide order dated 9.9.1999. Since the plaintiff was liable to be allotted the suit land, the Courts below rightly held that the name of the plaintiff was liable to be entered in column No.4 of the jamabandi as owner of R.S.A.No. 5061 of 2010 (O&M) 6 the land. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 12, 2011 anita