IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.285 of 1999 Date of decision : 01.11.2011 Puran and others … Petitioners Versus The Commissioner and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sandeep S. Mann, Sr.DAG, Haryana Ms.Shruty Bahadur, Advocate for respondent No.4. Paramjeet Singh, J. Through this writ petition, Puran and others, the petitioners have challenged the order Annexure P-5 dated 28.11.1996 passed by the Collector, Assand Camp at Karnal directing eviction of the petitioners from Rect. And Killa No.27//2(1-15) in village Tussang, Tehsil and District Karnal, on coming to know, on the application of Parmal Singh-respondent No.3, under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery), Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’). This ejectment order was affirmed in appeal by the petitioners before Commissioner, Rohtak Camp at Karnal vide his order dated 24.7.1998 (Annexure P-6). The brief facts of the case are that an application under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Act was filed by one Parmal Singh son of Paras Ram resident of village Tussang, Tehsil and District Karnal for eviction of the petitioners from Rectangle and Khasra No.27//2(3-10), 9 (2-10) total 5 Kanals 10 Marlas in village Tussang, Tehsil and District Karnal. Applicant CWP No.285 of 1999 (Respondent herein)- Parmal Singh alleged that he is the resident and proprietor of the village and has interest in the common properties of the village and as such is competent to file the application under the provisions of the Act. The land in dispute was reserved for Baisak Mawashian (place of gathering of cattle) and for school at the time of consolidation proceedings in the village. It is so described in the Jambandies for the years 1985-86 and 1990-91 (Exhibit P-1 and P-2 brought on the record of the Collector). On coming to know through the application of Parmal Singh, the Collector, Karnal issued notice dated 9.9.1991 (Annexure P-2) to the petitioners. In pursuant to the notice, the petitioners filed written statement (Annexure P-3) alleging therein that the land in question does not fall within the preview of the Act. They further pleaded that Parmal Singh has no locus standi to file such an application and the notice issued by the Collector is defective. In the present writ petition, the respondents appeared and Gram Panchayat was also added as a party respondent No.4 vide order dated 14.2.2005 passed in CM No.11714 of 2004. All the respondents have controverted the facts mentioned in the writ petition by filing separate written statements. Mainly, they all in their respective written statements had stated that the land in question vests in the Gram Panchayat. Gram Panchayat has management and control over it. The land in question, is reserved for common purposes i.e. school and Baisak Mawashian (place of gathering of cattle), during the Consolidation proceedings. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 2 CWP No.285 of 1999 A perusal of the documents on record i.e. jamabandies for the years 1985-86 and 1990-91 (Exhibit P-1 and P-2 on the file of the Collector), out of which, jamabandi for the year 1990-91 is annexed as Annexure P-4 (vernacular seen) in this writ petition. The revenue record clearly indicates that in the ownership column, names of the proprietors/right holders of the village are recorded and in the cultivation column, the entry is Rafai Aam and under the column of kind of land, the entry is shown as Gair Mumkin (un cultivable)- Baisak Mawashian (place of gathering of cattle) and school. The extract of Register of Consolidation proceedings dated 25.12.1954 (Annexure R-4/1) is on record in which Rect. and Killa No.27//2, 9 and others Khasra Nos. have been recorded at Sr. No.12, as Baisak Mawashian (place of gathering of cattle). From the above referred revenue record, it is clear that the disputed land in the revenue record is reserved for common purposes, so, vests in the Panchayat for management and control under Section 23-A of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) Act, 1948 and Rules 16(ii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation), Rules 1949. The entries in the jamabandies referred above, show that the land is jointly owned by the proprietors/owners and other right holders of the village. It is reserved for common purpose i.e. Baisak Mawashian (place of gathering of cattle) and school. Such land would be public premises as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act. So, the Collector can issue notice to get unauthorized occupant from such land evicted under the provisions of the Act. The petitioners/proprietors of the village can also be evicted from the land reserved for common purpose. 3 CWP No.285 of 1999 The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Parmal Singh has no locus standi to file an application under the provisions of the Act. It is only the owner who can file an application for eviction against the unauthorized occupants. I am not in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It would be appropriate to reproduce Section 4 of the Act which reads as under:- “4. Issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction.- (1) If the Collector is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorized occupation of any public premises situate within his jurisdiction and that they should be evicted, the Collector shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided, a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. (2) The notice shall- (a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and (b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the public premises, to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than ten days from the date of issue thereof. (3) The Collector shall cause the notice to be affixed on the outer-door or some other conspicuous part, of the public premises, or of the estate in which the public premises are situate, and in such other manner as may be, prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be 4 CWP No.285 of 1999 deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned. (4) Where the Collector knows or has reasons to believe that any persons are in occupation of the public premises, then without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), he shall cause a copy of the notice to be served on every such person by post or by delivering or tendering it to that person or in such other manner as may be prescribed.” The provisions of Section 4 referred above, make it clear that whenever the Collector knows or has reasons to believe that any person is in occupation of the public premises, then without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section 3, he shall cause a notice to be served upon every such person by post or by delivering or tendering it to that person or in such other manner as may be prescribed. On receipt of the application from Parmal Singh, the Collector become aware that the petitioners are unauthorized occupants and as such are in illegal possession of the common purpose land, reserved for Baisak Mawashian (place of gathering of cattle). On this, the Collector after satisfying himself, had issued notice (Annexure P-2) to the petitioners. The petitioners filed reply to the notice and were afforded opportunity to defend their case. The revenue record produced before the Collector clearly indicates that the property in dispute is reserved for common purposes and is public premises as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act. So, anyone can bring to the notice of the Collector about illegal occupants of such premises. In the present case, the Collector took notice of these facts and thereafter, issued a 5 CWP No.285 of 1999 notice to the petitioners. The Collector afforded opportunity of hearing to them. Parmal Singh has brought to the notice of the Collector regarding illegal possession of the petitioners and he was competent to file such application. On this information, this action was taken by the Collector against the petitioners in accordance with law. The Collector appreciated the evidence on record and had passed the eviction order against the petitioners. So, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that Parmal Singh had no locus standi to file application for eviction is not sustainable. Hence, rejected. Secondly, counsel for the petitioners argued that notice issued by the Collector to the petitioners was defective as no description of the land was mentioned therein. From the perusal of the notice (Annexure P-2), it is clear that in the column of particulars of premises, it is mentioned that copy of petition attached. It means that the application submitted by Parmal Singh respondent was attached in which detailed particulars of the land and the reason for intimation has been described. So, this contention of the petitioners is also devoid of any merit. The Collector after appreciating the evidence on record had recorded a categorical finding for ejectement of the petitioners in the order dated 28.11.1996 (Annexure P-5) which is reproduced below:- “ I have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel carefully and gone through the record. From the Jamabandi 1985-86 Ex. P/1 and 90-91 Ex. P/2, it is proved that the land in dispute is reserved for Rafai-Aam Baisak Mawesian, School etc. Ex.P/2 also proves that the Panchayat is managing the land in dispute. The land in dispute was also inspected and on the spot, the respondents have constructed houses. According to the report of demarcation, the unauthorized possession of the 6 CWP No.285 of 1999 respondents was found on khasra No.27//2 (1K-15M) but they have not been found in unauthorized possession of Khasra No.27/9.” The Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the petitioners by concurring with the findings of the Collector. The relevant part of the order of the Commissioner is also reproduced below:- “I have come to hold that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants do not carry any weight. Section 4 of the Act empowers the Collector to issue notice in writing calling upon any person in unauthorized occupation of any public premises within his jurisdiction. If he is of the opinion that said person is in unauthorized occupation of any Public Premises. There is no bar to any inhabitant of the village to file an application for ejectment of any unauthorized occupant of the Public Premises. The Collector can also serve such a notice suo moto. As per the revenue record, the land in dispute is in possession of Rafai-Aam as gair-mumkin basik maweshian and gair- mumkin school etc. Therefore, no fault can be found with the ejectment application moved by the respondent, because the control and management of such a land vests in the Gram Panchayat, though it is not its exclusive ownership. The appellants had not alleged in their written statements before the Collector that they are the co-owners of the land in dispute. They have taken this plea for the first time in the grounds of appeal before this court. Yet, as already stated above, since the control and management of the land in dispute vests in the Gram Panchayat under Section 18 of the Consolidation Act, the same falls within the definition of the Public Premises. I do not differ from the view of the Hon’ble High Court in 1992(1) RRR 178 that in the cases like the one in hand issues should be 7 CWP No.285 of 1999 framed but vide their statement dated 26.11.1992 made before the Collector, the learned counsel for the parties had themselves, stated that for the just decision of the case, the spot be inspected and measured and in case the appellants were found to be in possession of the land left for the benefit and common purposes of the villages, they be ordered to be ejected from the same.” The Collector and the Commissioner had recorded the findings of fact based on the evidence on record. The petitioners could not rebut the entries in the jamabandies and the register of Consolidation proceedings to which the presumption of truth is attached. Counsel for the petitioners has not pointed out any material irregularity, illegality, perversity or error of jurisdiction in the impugned orders. So, in view of the discussion above, the present writ petition being devoid of merits must fail and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ( PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE 01.11.2011 sd 8