CWP No.12043 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12043 of 2007 Date of decision:04.08.2010 Gram Panchayat Kariha ...... Petitioner VERSUS Joint Development Commissioner (IRD), Punjab Chandigarh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA. Present: Mr.Harsh Bunger, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Anu Pal, AAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate for respondent no.3. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA.J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order 08.03.2007, passed by the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) Punjab, Chandigarh, and the order dated 25.02.2005, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Nawanshahar. Bhupinder Singh-respondent no.3, filed an application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), praying for a declaration that land measuring 3 kanals and 8 marlas bearing Khasra No.71//7/1 of Khata No.796/1047, situated within the revenue estate of village Kariha, Tehsil and District Nawanshahar, does not belong to the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat filed a reply alleging that as respondent no.3 has taken the land on lease, from the Gram Panchayat, he is estopped from asserting his ownership. The Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Nawanshahar, dismissed the application. CWP No.12043 of 2007 -2- Aggrieved by this order, respondent no.3 filed an appeal. The Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab, allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Nawanshahar, and held that as the land in dispute is Shamlat Patti Mehlawali, the mere recording of a mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat, would not confer title upon the Gram Panchayat. Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the pleadings and the voluminous evidence on record clearly establish that respondent no.3 obtained the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat, but thereafter refused to vacate it. Respondent no.3 is therefore, estopped from denying the title of the Gram Panchayat. It is further submitted that the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-collector clearly held that respondent no.3 obtained the land on lease but the appellate authority has ignored this finding and accepted the appeal without adverting to much less dealing with this finding. In support of this argument, counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon Division Bench judgments of this court reported as Ajit Singh Versus Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab, 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 678, and Kuldip Singh and others Versus Gram Panchayat, Pehar Kalan, Tehsil Rajpura and others, 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 93, Counsel for the respondent no.3 contends that the mere fact that respondent no.3 is recorded as a lessee would not deprive him of his right to seek adjudication of the question of title. It is argued that the entry in the revenue record, showing respondent no.3 as a tenant is factually incorrect. The entry is not based on any lease deed or Kabuliyatnama, and therefore, does not operate as estoppel against the responent. It is further submitted that as the land was Shamilat Patti Mehlawanli, before a mutation was CWP No.12043 of 2007 -3- recorded in the name of the Gram Panchayat, the land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. I have heard counsel for the parties and am inclined to accept the writ petition. A lessee is, by the very nature of his possessory title, estopped, by Section 116 of the Evidence Act, from asserting ownership contrary to the title of his lessor. Reference in this regard may be made to Division Bench judgments of this court in Ajit Singh Versus Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab, (supra) and Kuldip Singh and others Versus Gram Panchayat, Pehar Kalan, Tehsil Rajpura and others, (supra). The Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, recorded a positive finding that respondent no.3, obtained the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat. While accepting the appeal and reversing the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Nawanshahar, the appellate authority failed to consider much less advert to this finding. In view of the error committed by the appellate authority, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated 08.03.2007, passed by the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) Punjab, Chandigarh, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD), Punjab, Chandigarh, to decide the matter afresh and in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD), Punjab, Chandigarh, on 08.10.2010. 04.08.2010 [RAJIVE BHALLA] shamsher JUDGE