CWP No.7419 of of 2007 v. Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar & Ors.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. R.C. Setia, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Vishal Ranjan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab, for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate for respondent no.3. ..... RAJIVE BHALLA, J Prayer in this petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 30.5.2001 and 21.12.2006, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector, Phillaur and the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar (exercising the powers of the Commissioner) respectively, directing the petitioner's ejectment and dismissing his appeal. The Municipal Committee, Nurmahal, respondent no.3 filed an application for eviction of the petitioner, from land bearing Khasra Nos.58//17/1 (0-16), 17/2(0-11), 17/3(0-16), 17/4(0-16), 17/5(0-16), 17/6(0- 11) total measuring 4 kanals 6 marlas, under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973. The petitioner filed a response alleging that as he is a proprietor in possession of his share in Shamilat Deh, the application is not maintainable. The Collector, vide his order dated 30.5.2001, accepted the petition, ordered ejectment of the CWP No.7419 of of 2007 2 petitioner and also directed him to pay damages of Rs.25,000/-. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar (exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Punjab Public Premises Act), on 21.12.2006. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Misal Hakiat for the year 1968-69 and the Khatouni Paimaish, Annexures P-7 and P-8, respectively record that the land is Shamilat Deh and in possession of proprietors, in accordance with their shareholding. The land, therefore, does not vest in the Municipal Committee. In the absence of any evidence to prove ownership, the mere inclusion of this land within municipal limits would not confer title upon the Municipal Committee. It is further submitted that as an entry in the revenue record, cannot be a source of title, reliance by the Municipal Committee upon a mutation to establish its title is entirely misplaced. Reliance for this argument is placed upon Nagar Palika, Jind Vs. Jagat Singh, Advocate, 1995(2) RRR 444. It is prayed that as the Municipal Committee has failed to establish its title by reference to any order transferring the land or any document of title, the impugned orders directing the petitioner's ejectment are null and void and should, therefore, be set aside. Counsel for the Municipal Council submits that the land in dispute belongs to the Municipal Committee. It was included within municipal limits vide notification dated 31.8.1937 (Annexure R-3/2) and was mutated in the name of the Municipal Committee on 24.8.1976. The mutation is based upon a notification extending municipal limits. The argument that the Municipal Committee has failed to prove its title is, therefore, misplaced. It is argued that the petitioner has failed to prove his CWP No.7419 of of 2007 3 status or his possession as a co-sharer, as the Misal Hakiat and the Khatouni Paimaish do not record the petitioner's possession I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The petitioner is a rank trespasser, who at first attempted to plead that the land vests in the proprietors, but when this plea failed, raised a plea that the Municipal Committee has failed to prove its title. The petitioner has raised an argument that as the Misal Hakiat and the Khatouni Paimaish record the possession of proprietors, the land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. This argument requires summary rejection. The petitioner is neither a proprietor nor an authorised occupant of the land in dispute. The petitioner has failed to produce any evidence that he is a proprietor of the original village or a co-sharer in Shamilat Deh and, therefore, cannot be allowed to take advantage of an entry in the revenue record. In fact, in his pleadings, filed in an inter parties civil suit, the petitioner pleaded that he entered possession as the land was vacant. The petitioner's attempt to perpetuate his unauthorised occupation of public property was rightly repelled by the Collector and the Commissioner. The petitioner further asserts that in the absence of the source of its title, the mutation and subsequent revenue entries recording the Municipal Committee as owner are mere paper entries that have to be rejected. For this argument, support is sought from the judgement in Nagar Palika, Jind Vs. Jagat Singh, Advocate (supra). The legal proposition, set out in Nagar Palika, Jind V. Jagat Singh, Advocate (supra) is beyond debate. A revenue entry is recorded to update fiscal statistics. In the absence of its source, a revenue entry CWP No.7419 of of 2007 4 cannot be relevant evidence of title. For a revenue entry, to be legal evidence of title, it must be founded upon a right, whether flowing from a devolution of rights based upon, a document or a statutory vesting of rights. The petitioner, therefore, would have been correct in asserting that the Municipal Committee has failed to prove its title but for the fact that the land in dispute, which is admittedly Shamilat Deh, has been included in municipal limits. The land in dispute was included in municipal limits, by way of a notification dated 31.8.1937, issued by the State of Punjab, under Section 188 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and as required by Section 201 of this Act. The notification (Annexure R-3/2) has been placed on record by way of C.M. No.14504 of 2009. The petitioner has not denied the correctness of the notification but merely alleges that the notification does not refer to any khasra numbers. The argument that the notification does not record khasra numbers, disregards the fact that limits of a Municipal Committee are extended by reference to boundaries. Furthermore, any land used for common purposes including Shamilat Deh, comes to vest in a Municipal Committee. The land in dispute, therefore, came to vest in the Municipal Committee, when it was included in Municipal limits. As the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

20.8.2010 GS ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE