GRAM PANCHAYAT, VILL HARIPURAversusTHE COMMISSIONER, FEROZEPUR DIVISION AND ANR.

A                  GRAM PANCHA VAT, VILL HARIPURA
                                  v.
            THE COMMISSIONER, FEROZEPUR DIVISION AND ANR.



B
                              SEPTEMBER 15, 2006
                                                                                   ...
                 [A.K. MATHUR AND TA RUN CHATTERJEE, 11.]


          land and Tenancy laws:

          Punjab Village Common lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964: Rule 6.
c
         Execution of lease-Payment and acceptance of rent-Entitlement to
  claim as a tenant-Gram Panchayat filed an application under Ss. 4 and 7
  of the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction anr.! Rent Recovery) Act for ejectment
  of tenants from the land owned by it as the said tenants were cultivating the
D land unauthorisedly-The Collector. after examining the Jamabandi and
  Khasra Gridawari, concluded that the land belonged to the Gram Panchayat
  and that the tenants were liable to be evicted under Section 5 of the Public
  Premises Act-It was also held that there was only one entry in the revenue
  record to the effect that the tenancy was from year-to-year basis and that did
  not characterize the tenants as authorized tenants of the land in question--
E Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the tenants-However, the High
  Court held that after the Panchayat became the owner it was receiving the
  rent from the tenants and, therefore, the Panchayat accepted them as tenants-
  Correctness of-Held: A particular method has been prescribed as to how the
  lease has to be executed as per Rule 6-Deposit of rent or '!Ven acceptance
  of rent by the Gram Panchayat wuuld not make a tenant a lawful tenant
F under the Gram Panchayat-A lawful tenant is one who has been admitted
  as a tenant after following the due procedure of law-Since the tenants were
  inducted without following the due procedure prescribed under Rule 6, they
  cannot be declared as lawful tenants under the Gram Panchayat-Punjab
  Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, Ss. 4 & 7--Punjab
G Security of land Tenures Act, 1963, S. 8.
           An application was filed by the appellant-Panchayat under Sections 4
     and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973
     against the contesting respondents for their ejectment on the ground that
     the appellant was the owner of the land in question and that the contesting
II                                      256
             GRAM PANCHAYAT, VILL HARlrURA r. COMMR., FEROZEPUR DIVISION     25 7

 respondents were cultivating the land unauthorisedly; The Collector, after          A
 examining the.Jamabandi and Kha5ra Gridawari, came to the condusion that
 the land belonged to the appellant and that the contesting respondents were
 liable to be evicted under Section S of the Act. It was also held that there was
 only one entry in the revenue record to the effeCt that .the contesting
 respondents were tenants from year-to-year basis and that did not characterize
 them as authorized tenants of the land in dispute. The Commissioner held            B
 that as per the ·J amabandi the contesting respondents had b~en shown as
 tenants paying rent per annum and allowed the appeal filed by them.

     . However, the High Court accepted the reasoning given by the
 Commissioner and held that the contesting respondents were not unauthorized         C
 occupants but were tenants of the appellant-Panchayat. Itwas also held that
 by virtue of Section 8 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1963
 tenancy did not come to an end on change of ownership or even on the death
 of the land o\vner. The High Court further observed that after the appellaut-
 Panchayat became the owner it was receiving the rent from the contesting
 respondents and, therefore, the appellant accepted them as tenants. Hence the       D
 appeal

       Allowing .the appeal, the Court
         .              .   .              .

        HELD: I. I. A particular method has been prescribed as to how tlw lea~e
· has lo be.executed as per Rule 6 of the Punjab Village Common Lands                E
  (Regulation) Rules, 1964. Therefore, unless proper lease is grai1tcd in the
  manner prescribed in Rule 6 of the Rules till that time simply because someone
                                                       a
  has paid rent that \~Ould not entitle him to claim as tenant. I~ the absence Of
  statutory provisions and rules thereunder,' it is difficult to accept that since
  the rent had been deposited with the Gram Panchayat that would make the            F
  contesting respondents as tenants. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the
  Commissioner and affirmed by the Division Bench of the. Higtl Court cannot
  be sustained. 1264-0, E, FI

        1.2. Simply someone has paid or deposited the rent with the Gram
   Panchayat voluntarily after unauthorisedly occupying the Gram Panchayat           G
  land, he would not be deemed to be a tenant. This would l>e mockery of law. A
                                                 a
. lawful tenant is one who has been admitted as tenant after following the due
. procedure of law. It is n-ot.one man show of the Sarpanch of the Grarn
  Panchayat that he ca_n surreptitiously ·take someone as a tenant without
  following the procedure under the rules. In case the Sarpanch or any Panch
                                                                                     H
    258                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A inducts someone as a tenant without following the procedure prescribed under
    the Rules, then such induction of the person will not be authorized or lawful
    and the Gram Panchayat will not be bound by that. (264-F, G, H; 265-AI

          Gram Panchayat, Village Haripura v. Commissiuner, (1989) PLJ 221
    (Pun) (FB); approved.
B
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 433of200.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 21.7. 1998 of fhe High Court of
    Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W. P. No. 11066/1998.

c                                      WITH

          C.A. No. 434 of2000.

          Sushi! Kumar Jain, H.D. Thanvi and Sarad Singhania for the Appellant.

D         V.C. Mhajan, Dhirnj and P.N. Puri for the Respondents.

          Rr-Ex-Purte.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E         A.K. MATHUR, ,I. Both these appeals involve common questions vf law
    & fact therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.

         For convenient disposal of these appeals, the facts given in C.A.No.433
    of 2000 are taken into consideration.

F        This appeal is directed against the order dated 2 I. 7. 1998 passed by
   learned Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The Division
   Berich disposed ofC.W.P."No.11059of1998 and C.W.P.No.11066of1998 both
   by this order. The Division Bench took the view that by virtue of Section 8
  of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1963, (hereinafter to be referred
                               •
  to as the Act of 1963 ) tenancy does not come to an end on change of
G ownership or even on the death of the land owner. It was also held that the
  appellants became the owner of the disputed land and the contesting
   respondents wen: tenants. This finding of fact was given on the basis of the
  jamabandi i.e. revenue records. In jamabandi it was recorded that the
   respondent was a tenant on payment of Rs .64/- per kila sol tamam i.e. for
H one year. It further observed that after the Gram Panchayat became the owner
    GRAM PANCHA YAT, VILL HARIPURA r. COMMR., FEROZEPUR DIVISION [A.K. MATHUR, J.)   259
   it was receivi_ng the rent from the contesting respondents, therefore, the Gram A
   Panchayat accepted· them as tenants. This was contested by the Gram
   Panchayat and it_ was submitted that such voluntary deposit of rent by
   occupier of land cannot be deemed to be tenant. In this connection, the Full
   Bench decision in the case of Gram Panchayat, Village Haripura v.
  Commissioner, Ferozepur and Ors., reported in ( 1989) Punjab Law Journal 221
  was placed before the Division Bench. The Division Bench distinguished this B
· case and disf\1 issed the writ petition holding that the decision in the case of
   Gram Panchayat, Haripura (supra) was with regard to tenancy on year to
   year lease basis and after expiry of the lease by efflux of time tenancy had
   come to an end. Aggrieved against this order of the Division Bench present
   special leave petition was filed and leave was granted and it was registered C
  as appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view taken
  by the Division Bench is erroneous and Full Bench decision squarely covers
  the pre·sent case on facts as well as law.

         Brief facts of this case are that an application was filed by the Gram
· Panchayat, Haripura through its Sarpanch under Sections 4 & 7 of the Punjab D
  Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 against the contesting
  respondent for his ejectment from the land situated within the revenue estate
  of the village Haripura on the ground that the Gram Panchayat is the owner
  of the land in question and the contesting respondent was cultivating the
  land unauthorisedly and the respondent has not vacated the land in question E
 despite request and the respondent be ordered to pay Rs.2933.60 as rent for
  use and occupation of the land in dispute. The respondent on being summoned
  appeared and was given an opportunity to file his reply. Both the parties were
  directed to place evidence in support of their respective pleas. The Gram
 Panchayat produced Sh.Badasukh, Panch and Nathu Ram, Sarpanch and
 respondent produced Ramesh Gupta, Ahlmed of.court of E.M., Abohar Sh. F .
 Krishan Murari Clerk and Sh. Gurdev Singh Patwari Halqe Haripura. It was ·
 submitted before the Collector that there is no valid record produced by the
 respondent to show that he has been cultivating the land with the consent
 of the Gram Panchayat therefore the Sarapanch of the Gram Panchayat has
 been authorised to file the present suit. It was prayed that the respondent be
 ejected from the land in question. On the other hand, it was submitted by the G
 respondent that the rent for the land in question ·has already been paid by
 the respondent and that the respondent has been cultivating the land as a
 tenant at will under the Gram Panchayat since very long time. It was· also
contested by the Gram Panchayat that mere entry of the respondent in the
revenue record as a tenant from year to year does not characterise him as an H
    260                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A authorised tenant in the land in question.
         The Collector after examining the Jamabandi and Khasra Gridawari
  came to the conclus10n that the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat, Haripura
  and that it is public premises as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act. It was
  also pointed out that the respondent has not been able to bring any material
B to show that this land was leased out or granted or otherwise entered into
  possession of the land authorisedly. There is only an entry in the revenue
  record as tenant from year to year basis and that does not characterise him
  as an authorised tenant of the land in dispute. The Collector ordered that the
  respondent is in unauthorised possession of the land in question and
C accordingly he is liable to be evicted under Section 5 of the Act. However
  with regard to the damages for use and occupation of the land in question,
  the Collector found that the Gram Panchayat has failed to produce any record
  from which it could be inferred that the amount for the period in question is
  still due against the respondent. Therefore, this part of the relief was denied.
  Against this order dated 3.3.1983, an appeal was preferred by the respondent
D before th<! Commissioner. Learned Commissioner after examining the matter
  set aside the order of the Collector and held that as per the Jamabandi, the
  respondent had been shown as Gair Marusi paying lagan @ Rs.64/- per killa
  per annum. Therefore, on the basis of the entry made in the Jamabandi,
  learned Corr:missioner concluded that the respondent cannot be heid to be
E an unauthorised occupant of the land in question. Learned Commissioner on
  the basis of the jamabandi allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and
  set aside the order of the Collector and dismissed the application of the
  appellant. Aggrieved against this order the Gram Panchayat filed a writ petition
  before the High Court which came to be dismissed along with Writ Petition
  No. I I059of1998. The Division Bench of the High Court accepted the reasoning
F given by the Commissioner to the effect that on the basis of the entry in
  Jamabandi the respondent was not unauthorised occupant but he was a
  tenant of the Gram Panchayat. The Division Bench also cursorily distinguished
  the Full Bench judgment in the case of Gram Panchayat, Haripura (supra)
  on the ground that it was a case of year to year lease and after expiry of the
G lease by efflux of time the tenancy had come to an end.
          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
                                                                                     ..
        We fail to understand the reasoning given by the Division Bench in
  distinguishing the Full Bench judgment. The Full Bench judgment clearly
H covered the facts of the present appeal. In order to appreciate the controversy,
   GRAM PANCHA YAT, VILL HARIPURA 1·. COMMR., FEROZEPUR DIVISION (A.K. MATHUR, J.)   26 J

   it may be relevant to mention the facts of the Full Bench decision, which relate A
   to the same Gram Panchayat of village Haripura: The land in question was
   'Shami/at Deh'. By virtue of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)
  Act, 1953 (h~r~inafter referred to as the Shaniilat Law), the Shami/at Deh, the
  land vested in the Gram Panchayat. It is alleged that the owners of the
  shamilal land adopted a device & formed a niemorandum of association of B
  Haripura Trust Committee, Haripura and got it registered. It was mentioned
  therein that the General Cornmittee would consist of 8 members who are the
  owners of the sham iiat land which has been transferred to the Tru~t and the
  land was mutated in the name of tb Trust in the year 1954. By the same
  device those persons were inducted as tenants of the trust. This shamilat law
  was substituted by new enactment known as Punjab Village Common Lands C
  (Regulation) Act, 1961. Section 2(g) of the said Act of 1961 defined 'Shami/at
  Deh'. i.e. various types of lands were included in shamilat deh and no dispute
  was raised that the present land is not shamilat deh. Prior to mutation in
  favour of the Trust, it continued as shamilat deh. In the year 1957, a corrective
  mutation was entered and the land was remutated in favour of'the Gram
· Panchayat. It was submitted that though the land was mutated in the name D
  of the Trust but the contesting respondents claimed that they were the
  tenants of the trust. In the year 1965-66 the consolidation operat!On took
  place and the contesting respondents claimed that they cimtinued as tenants
  under the Gram Panchayat and that in Jamabandi for the year 1970-71 each
 of them was recorded as tenant on payment of fixed cash rent. The appellant- E
 Gram Panchayat Haripura filed five separate petitions before the Collector,
  Fazilka under sections 4 & 7 of the Act of 1961 and the same plea was raised .
 that they were not unauthorised occupants and on the basis of Jamabanbdi
 of 1971, they were recognised as tenants by the Gram panchayat. The
 Collector,, however, did not feel persuaded and passed an order of ejectmerit
 in all the five cases. The matter was taken up in appeal before the Commissioner, F
 Ferozepur Division. The Commissioner relying on thejamabandi of 1970-71 ·
 held that on the basis ofthe aforesaid jamabandi nothing further was required
 to prove ihe status of the tenants since they were recorded as tenants under
 the Gram Pimchayat and the jamabandi entries shall be. presumed to be
 correct as they were not rebutted. Therefore, the Commissioner reversed the· G
 decision of the Collector. Under these circumstances the matter was brought
 up before the Full Ben~h of the High Court. The Full Bench after going
 through the revenue records came to the conclusion that each tenant was
 shown in col. 5 of the jamabandi as 'Gair Marusi' which means a tenant-at-
 will .under the Gram Panchayat. In col. 9, meant for the rent, entry is 'Lagan
 Naqdi Rs.64/- fee Ki/la Saal Tamaam' which when translated in English H
    262                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A means ·• Rent-in-cash at the rate of Rs.64/- per acre for the whole year" and
    the same argument was raised before the Full Bench that because of this
    entry, unless the tenancy is terminated by giving notice under section I06 of
    the Transfer of Property Act the tenant has a right to continue over the land
    and the provisions of Sections 4 & 7 o the Act of 1961 are not applicable.
B   Thereafter, the Full Bench quoted the provisions of Section 3 of the Act.
    Section 3 of the Act reads as under :

               "Unau(horised Occupation of Public Premises.

               3. For the purposes of this Act, a person shall be deemed to be
           in unauthorised occupation of any public premises -
c              (a) where he has, whether before or after the commencement of
           this Act, entered into possession thereof otherwise than under and
           in pursuance of any allotment, lease or grant; or

               (b) where he, being an allottee, lessee or grantee, has, by reason
D          of the determination or cancellation of his allotment, lease or grant in
           accordance with the terms in that behalf contained, ceased, whether
           before or after the commencement of this Act, to be entitled to occupy
           or hold such public premises; or

               (c) where any person authorised to occupy any public premises
E          has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act,-

               (i) sub-let, in contravention of the terms of allotment, lease or
           grant, without the permission of the State Government or of any other
           authority competent to permit such sub-letting, the whole or any part
           of such public premises, or
F
               (ii) otherwise acted in contravention of any of terms, express or
            implied under which he is authorised to occupy such public premises.

               Explanation.- For the purposes of clause (a), a person shall not
           merely by reason of the fact that he has paid any rent be deemed to
G          have entered into possession as allottee, lessee or grantee."

    The Full Bench interpreted this provision and observed as under:
                                                                                      ·~



               "It is patent from the reading of the aforequoted provisions that
           any person who has entered into possession of a public premises
           otherwise than under and i11 iiursuam:e of any allotment, lease or
H
  GRAMPANCHA YAT, VILL HARIPURA 1·. COMMR., FEROZEPUR DIVISION [A.K. MATHUR, J.]   263
         grant, is an unauthorised person deemingly, and may not be so under             A
       · the provisions of any other law. The opening words of the afore-
         quoted prov_ision are also a pointer that unauthorised occupation of
         any public premises for the purposes of the Act qua a person is
         deemingly and it is on that basis that the Act works. The explanation
         specifically makes it clear that for the purpose of clause (a) a person         B
         shall not merely by reason of the fact thathe has paid any rent be
         deemed to have entered into possession as allottee, lessee or grantee."

The Full Bench also quoted sub-rule (7) of Rule 6 of the Punjab Village
Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, and pointed out that as per the
Jamabandi rent was payable in advance at the rate of Rs.64/- per acre for the            C
land in question and if the rent ·is already paid then the lease shall be
determinable by efflux of time. Therefore, it was observed that the Jamabandi
in question established a tenancy from year to year determinable only by a
notice in writing under section I 06 of the Transfer of Property Act is not
correct. It was further observed that the view taken by the Commissioner in
treating the contesting respondents as tenants at will that they had a right             D
to continue on the land uninterrupted till the lease in theii- favour is not
terminated cannot be sustained. It was also pointed out that there is prescribed
procedure as to how auction of land .in shamilat deh should be done. It was
observed as under :

            "Rule 6 afore-referred to has also other facets which have to be             E
       taken note of. Sub-rule (I) therefore provides that all leases of fand
        in shamilat deh shall be by auction, after making publicity in the
       manner laid down in sub-rule (10). All documents executed in this
       connection shall be signed by a Sarpanch or in his absence by the
       Naib Sarpanch or in the absence of both by a Panch performing the                 F
       duties of the Sarpanch and two other Panches authorised for the
       purpose by the Gram Panchayat. It is obvious therefrom that the
       creation of a lease and that too, by public auction has to be
       authenticated and documented by three persons named therein. It is
       not a one-man show. Obviously, this rule has been enacted to protect
       the interests of the Panchayat, and seemingly in order to undo the                G
       vast corruption resorted to by some of the Sarpanches of the
       Panchayats in passing over the panchayat properties to their favourites
       and others by underhand means in causing loss to the revenue of the
       Panchayat, which is meant to be spent for the welfare of the rural
       population. So, a lease in contravention of rule 6 is no lease in the             H
    264                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
                                                                                      •

A           eye of law and obviously the Panchayat can, in such circumstances,
            resort to the provisions of section 4 of the Act, seeking eviction of
            the supposed lessee who comes on the scene without a valid title
            under sub-rule (I) of rule 6."

          In this background the Full Bench observed as under :
B
                " Compelled, in these circumstances, if the Panchayat had accepted
            advance rent in cash from the contesting respondents, that by itself
            would not take the contesting respondents out of the purview of
            sections 3,4 and 7 of the Act, for the leases in their favour had been
            determined in accordance with the terms of that lease, even though
c           the lease was oral and not reduced to writing. The contesting
            respondents ceased to be entitled to get or hold the public premises
            after the efflux of on agricultural year from the payment of lease
            money last made for the purpose consciously to the Panchayat and
            to none other."

D Therefore, the Full Bench took the view that because some rent had been paid
    that would not make a tenant ipso facto a lessee. A particular method has
     been prescribed that how lease to be executed as per Rule 6. Therefore, in
    this view of the matter, we are of opinion that unless proper lease is granted
    in the manner provided in rule 6 of the Rules till that time simply because
E someone has paid rent that would not entitle him to claim as a tenant. In the
    absence of statutory provisions and rules thereunder, it is difficult to accept
    that since the rent had been deposited with the Gram Panchayat that would
    make them tenants. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the Commissioner, Firozepllr
    Division and affirmed b~ the Division Bench of the High Caurt cannot be
    sustained. We are unable to understand the reasoning of the Division Bench
T;'
    to ignore the Full Bench judgment on the ground that in the aforesaid case
    the lease was granted year to year bas is. The question is not the grant of
    lease on year to year basis. The question is whether the Gram Panchayat has
    recognized the contesting respondent as a tenant or not. Simply someone has
    paid or deposited the rent with the Gram Panchayat voluntarily after
G unauthorisedly occupying the Gram Panchayat land, he would not be deemed
    to be a tenant. This would be mockery of law. A lawful tenant is one who
    has been admitted as tenant after following due procedure of law. It is not
    one man show of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat that he can
    surreptitiously take someone as a tenant without following the procedure
    under the rules, in case the Sarpanch or any Panch inducts someone as a
H tenant without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules then such
        GRAMPANCHAYAT, VILLHARIPURA 1·. COMMR., FEROZEPUR DIVISION (A.K. MA lllUR.J.]   265

      induction of the person will not be authorised or lawful and the Gram                   A
      Panchayat will not be bound by that. In fact for lease of Shami/at deh land
      proper procedure has been prescribed that the land has to be auctioned and


 -   proper document has to be executed and it has to be authenticated. In the
     absence of the proper formalities being undertaken the voluntary deposit of
     the rent or even accepting the rent by the Gram Panchayat will not make that
     person a lawful tenant under the Gram Panchayat.
                                                                                              B

           In this view of the matter, we are of opinion that the Full Bench
     judgment clearly held the field and rightly so in our opinion. Therefore, this
     appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 21.7.1998 passed by the
     Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ Petition C
     No.11066 of 1998 is set aside and the order dated 13.2.1984 passed by the
     Commissioner, Firozepur Division is also set aside and the order dated 3.3.1983
     passed by the Collector, Fazilka is affirmed.

            In view of the aforesaid reasoning, the civil appeal No.434 of 2000 is
     allowed and the judgment order dated 21.7 .1998 passed by the Division Bench             D
     of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. I I059 of 1998
     is set aside and order dated 13.2.1984 passed by the Commissioner, Firezepur
     Division is also set aside and the order dated 3.3.1983 passed by the Collector
     Fazilka is affirmed. No order as to costs.

           However in case any crop of the respondent are standing in the field               E
     then the. contesting respondents may be given time to harvest the crop and
     thereafter the Gram Panchayat may take the possession of the land in question.

     v.s.s.                                                           Appeal allowed.




·,