CWP No.11544 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.11544 of 2008 Date of Decision: 27.9.2010 Manjit Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Deptt. Punjab and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. M.S. Kang, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr.Nakul Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.3. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 24.10.2006 and 25.1.2008, passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Hoshiarpur and the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, Chandigarh (exercising the powers of the Commissioner) under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner is recorded in possession, as a tenant on payment of “Batai half Paidawar half Kharch half”, the application filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Act for the petitioner's ejectment is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the petitioner was forced to take the land on lease for a period of one year under pain of forcible dispossession and, therefore, this CWP No.11544 of 2008 2 fact alone would not disentitle the petitioner to assert his tenancy and as a consequence, his plea that proceedings under Section 7 of the Act are not maintainable. It is further argued that a civil court has passed a decree restraining the Gram Panchayat from dispossessing the petitioner. Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, on the other hand, submits that entries in the revenue record, showing payment of rent are false and stand rebutted by the fact that the petitioner obtained the land on lease for the year 1995-96 in an open auction. The petitioner was required to hand over possession, on the expiry of this period of one year, but as he had failed to do so, his possession became unauthorised. The Gram Panchayat, therefore, validly exercised its right by filing an application under Section 7 of the Act to seek the petitioner's ejectment. It is further argued that as the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant in possession after the expiry of the lease period of one year, the writ petition should be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the revenue record and the impugned orders. The petitioner admittedly obtained the land on lease for a limited period of one year i.e. for the year 1995-96, on the basis of an auction. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be heard to urge his status as a tenant on the basis of an entry recorded in the jamabandis Annexures P-1 and P-2. The petitioner has failed to produce any patta nama or lease deed in support of the entry recording him as “Gair Marusi” on payment of “Batai half Paidawar half Kharch half”. The petitioner has also failed to produce any receipt, evidencing the payment of rent. The petitioner obtained the land on lease for the year 1995-96, but refused to vacate the land, compelling the Gram Panchayat, to file an application under Section 7 CWP No.11544 of 2008 3 of the Act. A lessee, in occupation of panchayat land for a limited period is deemed to be an unauthorised occupant, if he fails to vacate the land upon expiry of the period so fixed. The petitioner's explanation that he was forced to take the land on lease under pain of forcible eviction is neither established nor relevant. The petitioner chose to take possession as a lessee for one year, in an open auction, but has succeeded in perpetuating his illegal possession for 15 years. The civil court decree merely restrained the Gram Panchayat from evicting the petitioner, except in due course of law and is, therefore, irrelevant. In view of what has been stated herein above, as the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law, the writ petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. 27.9.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE