Collector, Phagwara & Ors vs Brahm Dutt & Anr

1 Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent

Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")

against Brahm Dutt and Hari Saran, the respondents

herein. In the petition filed against Hari Saran, it was

stated that the land bearing Khasra No. 45 Min. North 2-

5, 46 Min. East 2-4 (KM), 47/8-0, 50/8-0, total measuring

20-K-9M, bearing Khewat No. 24, Khatauni No. 109

situated in village Bishanpur, Tehsil Phagwara, as per

Jamabandi for the year 1990-91, was owned by the

Punjab Government and the respondent had

unauthorisedly taken possession of the same. In the

petition filed against Brahm Dutt, it was stated that as per

Jamabandi for the year 1975-76 land measuring Khewat

No. 240 Khatauni No. 240, Khatauni No. 112, Khasra No.

37/K7 M4 38/8K-0M, 39 Min. North 2K-4M, 40 Min.

North 2K-6M total measuring 19K-14M KM belongs to the

Punjab Government and has been unauthorisedly

occupied by the respondents.

2

(b) By orders dated 23.10.1996 and 24.10.1996, the

Collector, Phagwara, Dist. Kapurthala, ordered the

eviction of both the respondents herein.

(c) Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondents

preferred appeals before the Commissioner, Jalandhar

under Section 9 of the Act. By order dated 27.01.1998,

the appellate Authority - the Commissioner, dismissed

both the appeals and confirmed the orders passed by the

Collector.

(d) Questioning the said order, Brahm Dutt filed C.W.P.

No. 10490 of 1998 and Hari Saran filed C.W.P. No. 10738

of 1998 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana for

quashing the orders of the Collector dated 23 &

24.10.1996 as well as the order of the Commissioner

dated 27.01.1998. In the writ petitions, it was stated by

the respondents herein that the land in dispute were

earlier owned by the Maharaja of Kapurthala, who had

allowed their fore-fathers to cultivate the land. It was also

stated that they had been in possession of the land for

3 more than 30 years and, therefore, had become the

owners of the land by adverse possession.

(e) The appellants herein - official respondents, filed

written statement before the High Court denying their

claim as to possession and asserted that the Government

is the real owner of the land in dispute.

(f) By a common order dated 24.04.2000, the High

Court allowed both the writ petitions and quashed the

orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner.

The High Court held that the respondents had been in

possession of the land by way of grant/gift from the

Maharaja of Kapurthala. It was also held by the High

Court that the respondents had entered into the

possession of land in an authorized manner and had

become owners since they had been in possession for

more than 30 years.

(g) Aggrieved by the aforesaid common order passed by

the High Court, the officials of the Government of Punjab

4 preferred the above appeals by way of special leave

petitions before this Court.

3) Heard Mr. Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the

appellants and Mr. S. Balakrishnan, learned senior

counsel for the respondents in both the appeals.

4) After going through the claim and assertion of the

respondents based on certain materials placed before the

Collector, Phagwara and the reasoning of the original

appellate authority as well as the High Court, we intend to

remit the matter to the original authority, namely, the

Collector, to decide the question as pleaded by the

respondents for the following reasons:

5) In order to arrive at a conclusion, it would be useful

to refer to these definitions. "Premises" and "Public

Premises" are defined in Section 2(d) and (e) of the Act

which read as follows:

"2(d) "premises" means any land, whether used for agricultural or non-agricultural purposes, or any building or part of a building and includes:-

(i) the garden, grounds and out-house, if any, appertaining to such building; or part of a building;

and

5

(ii) any fittings affixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof;

(e) "public premises" means any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of the State Government and includes any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of-

(i) any Municipal Committee, Notified Area Committee, Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samiti, Panchayat or Improvement Trust;

(ii) any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), in which not less than fifty one per cent of the paid-up share capital is held by the State Government; and

(iii) any Corporation [not being a company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or a local authority] established by or under a Central Act as defined in clause (7) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, or a Punjab Act and owned or controlled by the State Government;"

In view of the above definitions, there is no dispute about

the applicability of the Act. When notice under Section

4(1) of the Act was issued to the respondents calling upon

them as to why an order of ejection be not passed against

them, they appeared through their counsel and filed their

reply to the notice alleging that they are the owners and in

possession of the land in dispute for a period of 30 years.

They further asserted that even though in the revenue

records, the Provincial Government is shown to be its

owner, yet by adverse possession, they have become the

6 owners of the land in dispute. They also asserted that

they had been cultivating the land continuously for the

last 30 years. They made certain improvements in the

land and also installed a tubewell in the land in dispute.

It was also stated that since the name of the respondents

are shown as cultivators in the Jamabandi as "Gair

Marusi Bina lagan" (without payment of rent) and deemed

to be the owners, during consolidation proceedings,

therefore, the Tehsildar or the Government has no concern

with the said land. They also produced in evidence

Patwari Sarwan Singh Halqa PW-1, Phagwara as well as

Chanan Singh, Office Qanungo and got their statements

recorded. In his evidence, Patwari brought the original

Jamabandi and stated that the Jamabandi for the year

1990-91 was prepared by his predecessor. As per the

Jamabandi, the land bearing Khasra No. 45 Min. North 2-

5, 46 Min. East 2-4, 47/8-0, 50/8-0 is shown to be in the

ownership of the Provincial Government and the name of

Hari Saran, s/o Karam Chand is mentioned as cultivator

7 and similarly the land bearing Khasra No. 37/K7 M4,

38/8K-0M, 39 Min. North, 2K-4M and 40 Min North, 2K-

6M is shown to be in the ownership of the Provincial

Government and the name of Brahm Dutt is mentioned as

cultivator and they are cultivating the said lands and are

in possession of the same. Similarly, the Khasra Ex. P-2

has also been issued by his predecessor and he had

brought the original register.

6) No doubt, in the same record, the Provincial

Government is the owner of the land in dispute and the

names of both the respondents were mentioned as

cultivators/deemed owners (without payment of rent).

Apart from the same, they also appeared and asserted

their stand that they had been in cultivation and

possession of the land in dispute for the last 50 years and

by adverse possession, they became the owner of the land.

Though the District Collector adverted to all the materials

and assertions of the respondents, more particularly,

about their statements that they were cultivating the land

8 after the grant/gift of Maharaja of Kapurthala to their

fore-fathers, the said aspect was not looked into.

7) When the respondents herein filed appeals before the

Commissioner under Section 9 of the Act, without

adverting to any of these material aspects, the

Commissioner dismissed both the appeals by passing a

cryptic order.

8) The High Court, without adverting to the factual

details, particularly, the assertions of the respondents as

well as the entries in the Jamabandi for the relevant years

(Annexures R-1 to R-3), and without assigning valid

reasons, set aside the orders of the original and the

appellate Authority.

9) On going through the factual details, the stand of the

respondents, their assertions, the statement of Patwari

and the Office Qanungo and the entries in the relevant

Jamabandi, we feel that the ends of justice would be met

by directing the original authority - the Collector,

Phagwara, to pass fresh order after considering the above

9 materials and after affording opportunity to all the parties

concerned. Both the parties are permitted to lead fresh

evidence, if any, with reference to their respective

claim/stand within a period of eight weeks. It is made

clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the

claim/stand of both the parties and it is for the Collector

to apprise and take a decision in accordance with law

within a period of six months. In view of the same, we set

aside the impugned order of the High Court as well as the

orders of the original authority - Collector, Phagwara and

the appellate authority - the Commissioner, Jalandhar.

10) In the result, the civil appeals are allowed to the

limited extent. There shall be no order as to costs.

..........................................J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

..........................................J. (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN) NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 25, 2010.

1