Narinder Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Jindal, Addl.A.G. Haryana for respondents no.1 and 3. Mr. Sanjeev K. Taunk, Advocate for respondents no.4 to 18. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner without complying with the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Haryana Public Premises Act, 1971 or Sections 7 and 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana. The petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of panchayat property, as the lease in his favour has admittedly expired. Sub-rule 12 of Rule 6 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, as applicable to the State of Haryana, postulates that upon expiry of the lease period, a lessee would be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation and would be statutorily required to hand over possession to the Gram CWP No.10626 of 2008 Panchayat. 2 Counsel for the petitioner submits that sub-rule (12) of Rule 6 has to be read alongwith Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), as a person in unauthorised occupation can only be ejected in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Section 7 of the Act. Counsel for the private respondents states that it is correct that sub-rule (12) of Rule 6 has to be read alongwith the provisions of Section 7 of the Act but as it is merely explanatory of the nature of the rights of the parties, namely that the petitioner is already an unauthorised occupant, proceedings under Section 7 of the Act would take on the colour of a summary ejectment. I have heard counsel for the parties and tend to agree with the statements made by counsel for the parties that sub rule (12) of Rule 6 has to be read alongwith and is supplemental to Section 7 of the Act. Sub-rule 12 merely explains the status of a person after the expiry of a lease deed. Though sub-rule(12) of Rule 6 places an obligation upon the unauthorised occupant to hand over possession to the Gram Panchayat but it does not prescribe the procedure to be followed in case a person in unauthorised occupation does not hand over possession to the Gram Panchayat. In such a situation, summary provisions of Section 7 of the Act would come into play and the Gram Panchayat would be entitled to approach the authority under the Act for summary delivery of possession. Reliance for the above conclusion is placed upon a Full Bench judgement of this court reported as Roshan @ Roshan Lal and others V. The Secretary, Govt. of Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department, Chandigarh and others 1998 CWP No.10626 of 2008 3 (3) PLR 651, as while interpreting a similar rule, namely Rule 19 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (as applicable to the State of Haryana, it has been held that the Gram Panchayat would be required to proceed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Section 7 of the Act. A relevant extract from this judgement reads as follows :- “As has been discussed in the reference itself the above said judgement of this court is in direct conflict with a Division Bench Judgement of this Court in Jaimal's case (supra) wherein vires of Rules 19 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules 1964 (hereinafter called `the Rules)' were upheld. Rule 19 of the Rules defines unauthorised occupation of Shamlat Deh. Ultimately, it was held in Jaimal's case (supra) that in case of tenancy for a fixed term, the tenancy stands automatically determined by efflux of time and no action on the part of the landlord by way of notice to quit or the like is necessary. It becomes the duty of the tenant to hand over the possession of the demised premises immediately,as enjoined in Section 108(q) of the Transfer of Property Act. Moreover, the matter has been clinched by the Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat of Village Bhagal's case (supra). In that case, the Supreme Court has held that upon the expiry of term of tenancy, the tenant had no authority to continue in occupation of the common land belonging to the Gram Panchayat. Upon the expiry of the period of tenancy the tenant becomes an unauthorised occupant of the land. He could, therefore, be lawfully proceeded against under the provisions of Section 7 of CWP No.10626 of 2008 4 the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 read with Rule 19 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. The relevant portion of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under :- “ Respondent no.1 Bachna, was inducted as a tenant for a limited period of five years in 1963. Upon the expiry of the term of the tenancy he had no authority to continue in occupation of the common land belonging to the appellant Gram Panchayat. He upon the expiry of the five years term had thus become an unauthorised occupant. He could, therefore, be lawfully proceeded against under the provisions of Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 read with Rule 19 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964.” It would be necessary to clarify that once the lease deed expires, the person in occupation is an unauthorised occupant. The only exercise left to be performed by the Collector is to adopt the summary procedure prescribed by Section 7 of the Act. In view of what has been stated herein above, the present petition is disposed of, with liberty to the Gram Panchayat/private respondents to file an appropriate application under Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner would be required to pay damages for use and occupation of the premises as determined by the Assistant Collector, in accordance with CWP No.10626 of 2008 5 law for unauthorised occupation.

5.3.2010 GS (RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE