Civil Revision No. 4662 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Revision No. 4662 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 14th , 2011 Mahinder Singh .... Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh Rohar .... Respondent 2. Civil Revision No. 4663 of 2011 (O&M) Bukan Singh .... Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh Rohar .... Respondent 3. Civil Revision No. 4664 of 2011 (O&M) Harjinder Singh .... Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh Rohar .... Respondent 4. Civil Revision No. 4665 of 2011 (O&M) Desha Singh .... Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh Rohar .... Respondent Civil Revision No. 4662 of 2011 2 .. 5. Civil Revision No. 4666 of 2011 (O&M) Lakhwinder Singh .... Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh Rohar .... Respondent 6. Civil Revision No. 5241 of 2011 (O&M) Jeet Singh .... Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh Rohar .... Respondent 7. Civil Revision No. 5242 of 2011 (O&M) Mukhtiar Singh .... Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh Rohar .... Respondent 8. Civil Revision No. 5243 of 2011 (O&M) Gurbachan Singh .... Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh Rohar .... Respondent 9. Civil Revision No. 5244 of 2011 (O&M) Sukhdev Singh .... Petitioner Versus Civil Revision No. 4662 of 2011 3 .. Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh Rohar .... Respondent 10. Civil Revision No. 5481 of 2011 (O&M) Richhpal Singh .... Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh Rohar .... Respondent 11. Civil Revision No. 5485 of 2011 (O&M) Narender Singh alias Ninder Singh .... Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh Rohar .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Ashwani Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shilpa Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioners (in Civil Revisions No. 4662 to 4666, 5241 to 5244 of 2011). Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners (in Civil Revisions No. 5481 and 5485 of 2011) Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for the respondent - Gram Panchayat VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. By way of this judgment, I would be deciding Civil Revisions No. 4662 to 4666, 5241 to 5244 and 5481 and 5485 of Civil Revision No. 4662 of 2011 4 .. 2011 as the factual controversy between the parties is the same. Facts for deciding all these revision petitions are taken from Civil Revision No. 4662 of 2011. Mohinder Singh has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 14.6.2011 (Annexure P5) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pehowa vide which the application of the petitioner filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has been dismissed and the judgment dated 16.7.2011 (Annexure P7) passed by Additional District Judge, Kuruksheta, vide which the appeal preferred by Mohinder Singh has been dismissed. The orders passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Pehowa in the other 10 revision petitions are the decisions of the same nature but of different dates. The appeals have, however, been decided by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide judgment dated 16.7.2011. Mohinder Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction against Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh Rohar, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra on the allegations that he is in possession of land measuring 39 kanals 3 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Ramgarh Rohar, properly detailed in para No. 2 of the plaint, as per jamabandi for the year 2006-2007. He is in possession of the said land from the time of his father as lessee and his Civil Revision No. 4662 of 2011 5 .. possession over the same is peaceful. The land was originally in the shape of jungle and was uncultivable. Father/predecessors of the plaintiff made the same cultivable and are coming in peaceful possession of the same from much prior to 1957-58. The land in question along with other land was given by Gram Panchayat to Dalip Singh etc. for making it fit for cultivation. Father of the plaintiff installed a tubewell in the said land and raised construction therein 50 years ago. The suit property was never auctioned by the defendant. However, the plaintiff and his father has been paying lease money for this land to the defendant. After the death of his father, the plaintiff is in possession over the suit property being lessee under the defendant. No order of ejectment has ever been passed against the plaintiff in respect of the suit land by any competent court. Alleging that the defendant through its Sarpanch is now threatening to dispossess him from the suit property, the suit has been brought for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property or dispossessing him therefrom. By filing application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC, the plaintiff has claimed himself to have a prima facie case in his favour. He has added that he would suffer irreparable injury in case ad interim injunction was not granted in his favour and that the balance of convenience lies in his favour. He, therefore, prayed for the aforesaid relief of permanent injunction in his application for the Civil Revision No. 4662 of 2011 6 .. period till decision of the suit. The suit as well as the application were opposed by the defendant – Gram Panchayat. The defendant has denied the averments of the plaintiff and has denied him or his father to be in possession of the suit land from a time earlier to 1957-58. The grant of lease by Gram Panchayat to Dalip Singh etc. is denied. It is claimed that the plaintiff has been in possession of the property on yearly basis and after expiry of the lease period, the land had to automatically revert to the Gram Panchayat, for which no separate proceedings under the law were required to be initiated. It is claimed that the Panchayat is competent to take possession of the leased property including the construction thereof, if any, for which no compensation is payable to the plaintiff. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pehowa has found no prima facie case in his favour vide order dated 14.6.2011 (Annexure P5). Finding the case of the plaintiff to be lacking on the aspects of irreparable injury and balance of convenience, the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC has been dismissed. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff - Mahinder Singh against the order dated 14.6.2011 has been decided by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide judgment dated 16.7.2011 and as stated above, the appeal has been dismissed by Civil Revision No. 4662 of 2011 7 .. learned appellate court. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the plaintiff has brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri Ashwani Chopra, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Shilpa Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners in Civil Revisions No. 4662 to 4666, 5241 to 5244 of 2011, Shri Ranjit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioners in Civil Revisions No. 5481 and 5485 of 2011 and Shri N.S.Shekhawat, learned counsel for the respondent - Gram Panchayat and have gone through the record carefully. Shri Ashwani Chopra, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are lessees in possession of the land in question from the time of their forefathers. According to him, their possession dates back the time earlier to the year 1957-58. According to him, they had been coming in peaceful possession of the suit land and were paying the lease money every year, but the new Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh Rohar, who is inimical to them, auctioned the land without even taking possession thereof from the petitioners. According to him, the court should have granted the ad interim injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat from dispossessing the petitioners from the suit land, except in due course of law, because the possession of the petitioners over the suit land is not a disputed fact. Civil Revision No. 4662 of 2011 8 .. Elaborating his argument, Shri Ashwani Chopra, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that rule 6 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (for short, “the Rules”) has no application to the facts of this case as there is no expiry of the lease period in this case. According to him, learned trial court has wrongly relied upon the provision of this rule to hold that the land will automatically revert to the Panchayat on the expiry of the lease period and that no separate proceedings would be required to terminate the lease or even take possession thereof. He has submitted that this rule applies only in case of lease for an year and as the lease in favour of the petitioners is not for one year, the rule did not apply and the petitioners are entitled to protect their possession against unlawful attempts of the Gram Panchayat to dispossess them. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the suits had been filed on 3.6.2011 and the auction by the Gram Panchayat had also been held on 3.6.2011. According to him, the defendant is not consistent on the fact as to whether the petitioners have participated in the auction proceedings or not. Learned senior counsel has argued that the inference drawn by learned trial court to the effect that the lease has been for one year is wrong. According to him, he has based this inference on the receipt dated 28.8.2010, whereby lease money had been paid for one year by the petitioner. He has Civil Revision No. 4662 of 2011 9 .. submitted that no such inference is available from the receipt, which is dated 28.8.2010. According to him, even the date of auction is different and had this receipt been of that date, the given inference could have probably been available. He has submitted that in case of the lease of the kind claimed by the petitioners also, lease money has to be paid every year and the receipt dated 28.8.2010 of paying lease money for one year cannot be taken to make available the inference of the lease being for one year. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the petitioners are rustic, innocent and poor villagers. According to him, they have made pucca construction of their houses in the land in question and have installed tubewells. According to him, they would not have raised pucca construction of the houses and installed tubewells, had the lease been for one year at a time. He has drawn my attention to photographs (Annexures P12 and P13) to support his submission in this regard. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the revenue record speaks of old possession of father of the petitioner over the land in question. According to him, learned trial court has not been justified in discarding this piece of evidence only for the reason that father of the petitioner, in whose name there is entry in the revenue record, has already died. He has submitted that succession never remains in abeyance and the lease hold rights of the father have been inherited by the petitioner. According to him, Civil Revision No. 4662 of 2011 10 .. the death of the father of the petitioner, therefore, makes no difference to the possession of the petitioner over the suit land and his right to continue in possession thereof. Learned senior counsel has next submitted that Naresh Kumar and others filed Civil Writ Petition No. 11240 of 2011 before this court, which has been decided on 5.7.2011 (Annexure R1). According to him, in this decision, this Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case and had disposed of the writ petition with the direction that the petitioners shall submit their additional detailed representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, who shall dispose of the representation (Annexure P4) and the additional representation filed by the petitioners within 15 days. According to him, the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra has decided the representation of Naresh Kumar vide order dated 29.7.2011 (Annexure R4). He has submitted that Naresh Kumar had filed Public Interest Litigation. According to him, it was not maintainable because the interest of Naresh Kumar was involved in the same, he being interested in taking the land on lease. He has submitted that the direction given by the High Court in Annexure R1 has been exploited by Gram Panchayat in its favour. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the copy of order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra (Annexure R4) and has pointed out that the land measuring 47 acres 12 marlas has been auctioned in open auction Civil Revision No. 4662 of 2011 11 .. on 22.7.2011 for the lease money of Rs.5,49,400/-. According to him, the petitioners may be directed to pay the lease money at this rate, proportionate to the land in their possession. He has submitted that the petitioners have sown crops and the defendant is not allowing them to harvest the same. He has submitted that in these circumstances, the petitioners were entitled to ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in their possession over the suit land as also from dispossessing them therefrom, except in due course of law. Shri Ranjit Saini, learned counsel for petitioners in Civil Revisions No. 5481 and 5485 of 2011, has adopted the submissions made by Shri Ashwani Chopra, learned senior counsel. He has added that the possession of the petitioners over the suit land is not disputed and when the petitioners are indisputably in possession of the suit land, the injunction could not be denied to them as they have a right to remain in possession thereof till they are lawfully evicted therefrom. Shri N.S.Shekhawat, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there was no provision under which the lease of the description given by the petitioners, could be granted to them or their predecessors. According to him, the petitioners are not poor or rustic people and rather they are influential people, who had been hobnobbing with the previous Sarpanches of the Gram Panchayat and had been secretly manipulating the proceedings of Civil Revision No. 4662 of 2011 12 .. auction in their favour and paying lease money after enhancing the same. He has submitted that the lease in favour of the petitioners is clearly from year to year and the provisions of rule 6 of the Rules would definitely apply to the lease in question. He has submitted that keeping in view the attitude of the previous Sarpanches, Naresh Kumar and others filed a writ petition before this court and under the orders of this court, the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra made the order dated 29.7.2011 (Annexure R4). According to him, had the High Court not made any order in this regard, the petitioners would have continued to manage themselves in possession of the suit land. According to him, the petitioners have participated in the auction proceedings and have taken over the plots of land on lease. He has further submitted that scope of the revisional jurisdiction of this court is very limited and there is no illegality committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned orders. Possession of the father of the petitioner over the suit land is since long. However, the remaining documents do not support the plea of the petitioner of there being a lessee for indefinite period. If the father of the plaintiff had been a lessee in possession of the suit land, his death would not terminate the rights in the suit land of the plaintiff, who would succeed to the lease hold rights of his father. However, the question involved in these revision petitions is as to whether the lease was granted in the terms Civil Revision No. 4662 of 2011 13 .. mentioned in the plaint or as claimed by the other side, lease has been procured year after year by the petitioners in connivance with the Sarpanches of Gram Panchayat by enhancing the lease money every year. Mere construction of house or installation of tubewell would not prove the tenure of the lease. A person, who is taking lease of the land every year, he may have the impression in his mind that he would manage to keep the land in his possession for ever by using his skills and he may, in that event, raise the construction of the house or install a tubewell in the land. It is pleaded in paragraph No. 3 of the plaint that the land in question was in the shape of jungle and was uncultivable. It is further the case of the plaintiff that father/predecessor of the plaintiff made the same cultivable and had been in peaceful possession thereof from much prior to the year 1957-58. It is also the case of the plaintiff that Gram Panchayat gave the land to Dalip Singh etc. to make it fit for cultivation. Nothing is pleaded here as to what were the terms of Gram Panchayat regarding the period for which the lease was being granted. It is also not mentioned in the plaint as to what was settled about the lease money. There is nothing in the plaint to show any pattern to have been agreed for enhancement of the lease money in due course of time. It is a case where lease money has not been the same through-out. In case of lease of the nature claimed by the Civil Revision No. 4662 of 2011 14 .. petitioners, where uncultivable and forest land is given to a cultivator for making it cultivable, the terms regarding the lease money are beneficial to the cultivator. There may be any term for enhancement of lease money, but the same, if settled, should have come in the plaint. The first page of Annexure P3 is a receipt for Rs.1274/- in respect of plot No. 14 for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75. Page No. 2 of Annexure P3 is receipt for the year 1983-84 and it is in a sum of Rs.1920/-. Page No. 3 of Annexure P3 is the receipt for the year 2010-11 and it is in a sum of Rs. 25,900/-. This variation in the lease money clearly shows that lease money has been settled every year and this is a circumstance, which strongly points to the lease being yearly one. These documents support the stand taken by the respondent that the petitioners had been continuing their possession over the land hobnobbing with the previous Sarpanches and managing to have paper auction of the land in question by enhancing the lease money and it would not a lease for a period exceeding one year at a time. In these circumstance, the provisions of rule 6 of the Rules would stand attracted to the facts of the case and the Gram Panchayat would not be required to terminate the lease or take possession thereof by bringing separate proceedings. The possession of suit land would automatically revert to the Panchayat and, therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to protection of Civil Revision No. 4662 of 2011 15 .. their possession, if they had failed to deliver possession of the land on expiry of the lease period. The other submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners do not have relevancy to the controversy before me. Naresh Kumar, if had any personal interest in the Public Interest Litigation, that would not reflect upon the merits of the claim of the petitioners to remain in possession of the suit land. Similarly, the construction of house or installation of tubewell would not confer any right in favour of the petitioners to continue in possession of the land. In these circumstances, I find no perversity in the approach of learned courts below to the facts of this case and find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned decisions of learned courts below. The revision petitions are, therefore, devoid of merit and are dismissed. A copy each of this order be placed on the files of connected revision petitions. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 14th , 2011 som