IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CASE NO.: L.P.A. No.162 of 2009 in CWP No.14174 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : May 15,2009 Balbir Singh .......Appellant versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The appellant has filed the Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 21-01-2009 passed by learned Single Judge, vide which, the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed, holding as follows :- “ The submission by the petitioner that he was not given opportunity to prove his title also cannot be accepted as it is recorded in the order passed by the Collector that he was given full opportunity before passing the order of his eviction. In fact, the counsel for the respondents has invited my attention to Annexure P-3, which is an entry showing that petitioner Balbir Singh is paying Chokota of Rs.700/- per annum. This would undoubtedly show that the petitioner could also not dispute this fact that petitioner is even not the proprietor of the village and had allegedly purchased this land from some proprietor L.P.A. No.162 of 2009 in CWP No.14174 of 2006 -2- which also he could not show or establish before the authorities. The impugned orders, as such, are legal and valid and would not suffer from any infirmity which would call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.” Learned counsel for the appellant, while challenging the above order, submitted that the appellant had purchased the land from Thakkar Dass son of Motan Dass resident of village Kata Kheri vide Vasika No.2952 on dated 06-01-1982 and the owners of the land were Jumla Malkan and Degar Harkdan Araji Hasb Rasad Rakba. The applicant had raised the question of title in the application under Section 7 of the Village Common Land Act but the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fatehabad has not given decision on the question of title in his order dated 13-01-2004 but considered the possession of the appellant illegal. An appeal was filed against this order in the Court of District Collector, Fatehabad and which was rejected by on order of District Collector, Fatehabad dated 02-12- 2004. In addition to this, a claim on behalf of the applicant was filed under Section 13-A of the Village Common Land Act in the Court of District Collector, Fatehabad which was fixed for the written statement of the respondent but the District Collector, Fatehabad has rejected the claim of the applicant on dated 02-12-2004. The learned counsel of the applicant gave the reference of the rulings in the case of Gram Panchayat Pandori Waraich vs. The Joint Development Commissioner, IRD Punjab PLR Vol. CXXX-2002(1) 260, Gram Panchayat Village Bhedpura vs. The Additional Director, Consolidation and others 1997(1) PLJ 535, Gurnam Singh vs. Gram Panchayat Village Mangoli and others L.P.A. No.162 of 2009 in CWP No.14174 of 2006 -3- 1988 PLJ 520, Didar Singh vs. The Joint Director Panchayat, Punjab and others PLR Vol. CXXXIV (2003-2) 519, Ladu Ram vs. The Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar and others 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 747, Gram Sabha Salina vs. Nahar Singh 1982 P.L.J. 261. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we find no ground to interfere in the well reasoned judgment passed by learned Single Judge, in as much as the entry in the Annexure P-3, showing that the appellant-Balbir Singh is paying Chokota of Rs.700/- per annum is not denied. In fact, he relied on the said document P-3 but stated that the said entry has been wrongly made. The fact remains that this entry has not been set aside. Moreover, the disputed land is shown as the ownership of “Jumla Malkan” and the mutation is also registered on the name of the Gram Panchayat. In fact, as is borne from the order of the District Development & Panchyat Officer dated 13-01-2004, the mutation has been done in the name of Gram Panchayat by the orders of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. In view of the fact that the appellant is a tenant on the said land and is paying Chokota, he is estopped from raising the dispute of title to such immovable property. The Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follows :- “ 116. Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession.- No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon ay immovable property by the licence of L.P.A. No.162 of 2009 in CWP No.14174 of 2006 -4- the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given.” It is, therefore, clear from the perusal of the above Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the appellant is estopped from disputing the title of the Gram Panchayat being in possession of the land by virtue of paying the Chokota. The aforesaid authorities do not help the petitioner, in view of the mandate of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as reproduced above. In view of the above, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE May 15, 2009 gurpreet Whether to be referred to the Reporter : Yes / No