C.W.P. No.17974 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.17974 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision. 08.12.2011 Om Shanti Orphan Children Educational Society through its President .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Kriti Singh, DAG, Haryana. Mr. S.S. Kharab, Advocate for the applicant-respondent No.6. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) C.M. No.16726 of 2011 Application is allowed. Reply filed on behalf of respondent No.6 is taken on record. C.W.P. No.17974 of 2010 1. The writ petition seeks for quashing of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner Panipat on 10.06.2010 directing that the BSNL shall apply for an extension of period of lease with Gram Panchayat and necessary action should be taken. There is further prayer for a mandamus to direct the BSNL to obtain a lease in favour of the petitioner since the 5th respondent-Tehsildar is not granting an extension C.W.P. No.17974 of 2010 (O&M) -2- in the lease deed. 2. It bears out from the records produced before the Court that there are some buildings constructed in the property belonging to the Gram Panchyat and where some shops are being run and the rents are collected by the petitioner-Society. The petitioner is a registered society having been registered on 08.08.2002. It appears that even before the registration of the society, the buildings have come up. From what is brought before me, it is seen that the Panchayat has asserted no ownership in respect of the buildings, which are in existence over the property belonging to the Gram Panchayat. On the other hand, it seems that the Gram Panchayat itself has allowed for the BSNL installations to be made at the building, which is under the control of the petitioner- society, which was running an orphanage. At an earlier occasion when a lease was made by BSNL in favour of the petitioner, the Tehsildar-5th respondent, in whatever capacity, has allowed for execution of the lease in favour of the petitioner-society but now after the period of lease when there was a need for a renewal, the Panchayat has now objected to such a form of renewal with the petitioner-Society. 3. The State takes a defence that there is no orphanage run at the property and the property cannot be used by the petitioner-Society. The Gram Panchayat itself has filed a reply contending that there was a Sant residing in the building at the property belonging to the Gram Panchayat and the buildings themselves have been put up from out of the donations from the villagers. It is contended that the petitioner has no ownership over the property and in any event, the society itself has been formed subsequently much later than when the buildings have C.W.P. No.17974 of 2010 (O&M) -3- come up. 4. This is surely an issue relating to the disputed question of title over the buildings. While there is no dispute with reference to the ownership of the land itself, if the Gram Panchayat or any of its functionaries have allowed for the construction to be used by the petitioner-Society and he has even allowed for grant of lease for BSNL, the Gram Panchayat cannot take any action or secure a lease directly in its own favour without ejecting the petitioner in the manner known to law. 5. The Gram Panchayat shall be at liberty to take appropriate action through law for ejectment of the petitioner from the property if it were to be contended that no portion of the building that has been constructed on the Panchayat land belongs to the petitioner. The petitioner likewise is entitled to assert its own title in respect of the building constructed over the Gram Panchayat property and secure an appropriate relief in a properly instituted civil suit. 6. The law allows for certain facilities for an occupier who has made himself bona fide improvements although holding a property in a defective title. Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act makes possible for a person in possession to claim the value of the improvement estimated and paid or secured as a transferee, or to sell his interest in the property at the then market- value. If the petitioner would claim to be the owner of the superstructure, it shall always be entitled to secure reliefs in terms of what the law protects. 7. It shall not be competent for the Panchayat to take a lease in favour of BSNL without first taking possession of the property in the C.W.P. No.17974 of 2010 (O&M) -4- manner known to law. Now it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is in possession of the entire property and if BSNL would not execute a lease, the petitioner will be at liberty to claim appropriate damages for use in occupation against BSNL. The petitioner shall be protected in his possession till appropriate action for ejectment is made in the manner referred to above. 8. The impugned proceedings shall stand quashed to the extent referred to above. The writ petition is disposed of as such. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 08, 2011 Pankaj*