Civil Writ Petition No. 16597 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Civil Writ Petition No. 16597 of 2008 Date of decision: 25.09.2008 Shinder Pal Singh and another ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S.Khehar Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. S C Khunger, Advocate for the petitioners -.- Nirmaljit Kaur , J. The Gram Panchayat, Village Islamwala, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, for eviction of the petitioners from the land in question, on the ground, that the disputed land was under the management and control of the Gram Panchayat and the petitioners were in unauthorized and illegal possession of the land since September, 2002. Further, they have refused to deliver the possession of the land to the Gram Panchayat and nor are they giving any lease money to the Gram Panchayat. The aforesaid application was accepted by the Collector vide his order dated 07.06.2006 (Annexure P-4). Aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 07.06.2006, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Director Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, which also resulted into dismissal vide order dated 25.01.2008 (Annexure Civil Writ Petition No. 16597 of 2008 2 P-5). Through the present writ petition, the petitioners are impugning both the aforesaid orders. Heard. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the said land was reserved for Panchayat Farm for the welfare of Village Islamwala as is clear from the Scheme of Consolidation. The scheme insofar as it makes reservation of land for income of the said Panchayat is hit by second proviso to Article 31-A(1) of the Constitution of India and the same is liable to be set aside. To substantiate, reliance has been placed on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in 'Bhagat Ram and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1967 S.C. 927, to contend that no land could be reserved for the income of the Gram Panchayat by applying pro-rata cut to the proprietors of land during consolidation proceedings. He further relies on a judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'Puran v. Gram Panchayat Kussar, Tehsil Rania and District Sirsa,' 1996(1) RRR 698, which lays down that the tenant cannot draw better title than the owner. The aforesaid authorities do not help the petitioners, in view of the mandate of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which reads as follows:- “116. Estoppel of tenant and of license of person in possession - No tenant of immovable property of person claiming through such tenant shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and not person who came upon any immovable property by the Civil Writ Petition No. 16597 of 2008 3 licence of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person has a title to such possession at the time when such license was given.” In the present case also, the petitioners were lessee of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners have not been able to lead any evidence qua their ownership. In the jambandi for the year 1997-98, in the column of cultivation, the name of the Gram Panchayat is mentioned, and the Gram Panchayat has been giving this land on lease. Thus, the petitioners being tenant under the Gram Panchayat, cannot be permitted to deny title of the Gram Panchayat of such an immovable property of which they came into possession as licencee. The judgment rendered in the case of Purna's (supra), in fact, does not support the petitioners case, wherein, it was observed as under:- “...Secondly, once the landlord-tenant relationship is denied by the tenant as settled by numerable judgments he becomes a trespasser and relationship of landlord and tenant ceases. The tenant cannot be permitted to deny the title of his landlord. He cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate in the same breath. It has been categorically provided by Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act that the tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord. Herein, when the petitioner has categorically denied the title of the Gram Panchayat qua the land in dispute and has raised the question of title, he would be deemed to be trespasser by operation of law. In either eventuality, the petitioner is Civil Writ Petition No. 16597 of 2008 4 unauthorized occupant of the land in dispute.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to rebut the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities that the disputed land is shown as 'Jumla Mustarka Malkan' and the Gram Panchayat is cultivating the same. The petitioners had taken the land in question on lease in the year 2001-02 and after the expiry of the lease period, the possession of the land was not delivered to the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners did not produce any evidence from where, it could be inferred that how much of their share had been separated from the land for a common purpose at the time of consolidation of the land. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. [Nirmaljit Kaur] Judge [J.S.Khehar] Judge September 25, 2008 mohan