CWP No.17239 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.17239 of 2006 Date of Decision: 23.2.2010 Bhupinder Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab, for respondents no.1 to 4. Mr. Sukhbir Singh Mattewal, Advocate for respondent no.5. Mr. P.S. Khaira, Advocate for respondent no.6. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.17239, 18305, 18312 of 2006, 611 and 619 of 2007, as they involve identical questions for adjudication. The petitioners pray for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 10.10.2002, 29.4.2005 and 24.10.2005, passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Amloh, the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala and the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab, respectively. The Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar, filed a suit, under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, for recovery of batai @ 1/3rd of the actual produce. The petitioners pleaded that they are lessees CWP No.17239 of 2006 2 from the Mahant @ Rs.500/- per annum. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Amloh, decreed the suit. The appeal and the revision filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, respectively. Prior to these proceedings, the Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee, had filed a suit for possession, claiming ownership on the basis of notification No.7 GP dated 31.1.1974 and Notification No.1217 GP dated 23.6.1961 issued by the State of Punjab. Admittedly, the suit was decreed and the appeal filed against the decree has also been dismissed by this court, by holding that the Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee is the owner of the suit land and the lease deed is a fraudulent document, executed by the Mahant, in order to defeat the legal rights of the Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the lease deed, the Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee can recover rent @ Rs.500/- per annum. The orders passed by revenue authorities directing the petitioners to pay batai @ 1/3rd of the actual produce, is therefore, null and void. Counsel for the Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee, however, submits that in view of the judgement in RFA Nos. 1322 and 1614 of 1980 holding that the lease deed is a nullity, the petitioners are required to pay the batai as assessed by revenue authorities, namely: 1/3rd of the actual produce. It is argued that as the lease deed is surreptitious attempt to thwart the rights of the Government and the Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee and as the matter has been set at rest by this court, the relief claimed in the present petition no longer survives. CWP No.17239 of 2006 3 I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and appraised the order dated 12.2.2007, passed in RFA No.1322 of 1980 A relevant extract reads as follows :- “ These facts, therefore, clearly reveals that the lease deeds were executed by Bhai Ran Singh on 22/4/1962 and on 27/7/1962 i.e. after the dismissal of his objections and after the dismissal of is representation made to the Home Secretary and after he filed the CWP No.447 of 1962 and the matter was sub-judice. Bhai Ran Singh adopted this course of executing these lease deeds with malafide intention to defeat the orders passed by the Government of Punjab. After Bhai Ran Singh had challenged these orders by filing he writ petition on 18/4/1962, he had no right to execute the lease deeds for a period of 99 years. This was done by him with malafide intention and even the defendant-respondents, allegedly acquired the rights from Bhai Ran Singh with the same malafide intention. Therefore, these lease deeds are nothing but the fictitious documents executed by Bhai Ran Singh to create interest in the defendant-respondents in order to defeat the legal rights which had come to be vested in the appellant-Committee. These lease deeds therefore are obviously illegal and motivated and do not create any right in the defendant-respondents. Moreover, the matter about the rights of Mahant Ran Singh was sub judice when he executed the lease CWP No.17239 of 2006 4 deeds in favour of the defendant-respondents. Therefore, these lease deeds were to be subject to the decision of CWP No.447 of 1962. It was dismissed. If CWP No.468 of 1965 is considered to be the continuation of CWP No.447 of 1962, even it was dismissed on 4/2/1970. Therefore, the lease deeds executed in favour of defendant-respondents become non-existent in the eyes of law. At the most the defendant-respondent stepped into the shoes of Mahant Ran Singh. Since the executant of the lease deed had himself no legal right in the suit land, he could not pass on better title in favour of the defendant-respondents.” It is apparent from the above finding that the alleged lease deed executed in favour of the petitioners is a nullity, as it was executed so as to defeat the rights of the Government and the Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak committee. It has also been held that the Mahant Bhai Ran Singh had no legal right to execute the lease deed, as the property vested in the Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee, prior to the execution of the lease deed. In view of the above finding, the defence raised by the petitioners on the basis of the lease deed does not survive. The orders passed by the revenue authorities do not call for interference. As a result, the writ petitions are dismissed. 23.2.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE CWP No.17239 of 2006 5