Baldev Singh vs The Municipal Committee

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—This order shall dispose of 5 petitions bearing CWP Nos. 25397, 25400, 25403, 25404 and 25412 of 2013 because all the petitions have arisen from a common order passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala. However, the facts are extracted from CWP No. 25397 of 2013. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 1 filed an application under Sections 4 & 5 of the Haryana Public Premises (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), against the petitioner for seeking his eviction from the land in dispute on the ground that he is in unauthorized possession over the land owned by it. The stand taken by the petitioner before the Collector was that he is occupying the land in question for the last 50-60 years and has constructed his residential house over it and also obtained electricity connection. It is alleged that the land was given to him by the Panchayat through a resolution and thus, he is not in unauthorized possession. Both the parties led their evidence and on the basis thereof, the Collector came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove his title of ownership over the land in dispute which is in the name of respondent no. 1 and passed the order of eviction on 28.03.2011.

Aggrieved against that order, the petitioner filed appeal u/s 9 of the Act before the Divisional Commissioner, As many as 12 appeals were decided together by the Divisional Commissioner by a common order dated 21.05.2013. All those appeals were dismissed on the ground that the petitioner does not have any title of ownership over the land in dispute which belongs to respondent no. 1 and merely because the land in dispute, which was earlier in the name of the Panchayat which later on included in the Municipal Committee, was given by the Panchayat by way of resolution is of no consequence.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a poor person who was allotted the land by the Gram Panchayat through resolution and thereafter the petitioner has constructed his kucha/pucca house on it, got electricity connection and after the Municipal Committee came into existence, the property owned by the Panchayat vested in the Municipal Committee mutatis mutandis , the petitioner has been paying house tax to respondent no. 1 and as such, he is not in unauthorized possession.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in detail and perused the record.

Merely a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat on 26.06.1972 deciding to allot the land in dispute to the petitioner and such like persons free of cost would not clothe the petitioner and other similarly situated persons with the title of ownership because the Panchayat may utilize or dispose of the Panchayat land in terms of Sections 5 and 5-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable to Haryana) [hereinafter referred to as the "Act"], for which Rules have been framed in terms of Section 15 of the Act. Accordingly, in case where the Panchayat intends to give the land free of cost, i.e. by way of gift, Rule 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1994 (as applicable to Haryana) [hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") are applicable which categorically provides that the Panchayat may, with the previous approval of the State Government, gift the land vested in shamilat deh under the Act and in case the land vested in Panchayat is to be gifted in terms of Section 5A of the Act, Rule 13-A of the Rules provides the mechanism. The petitioner has failed to bring on record any material to the effect that the Panchayat had made the gift of the land in dispute u/s 5 or 5-A of the Act or Rule. 13 or 13-A of the Rules and, in any case, a simple resolution of the Panchayat, without prior approval of the Government, is inconsequential to make the petitioner owner of the land in dispute to escape from the order of eviction being in unauthorized possession even though he has been in continuous possession for the last many years and is also enjoying the basic-amenities of electricity connection etc. In view of the aforesaid "discussion, I do not find any merit in the present writ petitions to tinker with the findings recorded by the Courts below about unauthorized possession of the petitioner(s) nor do I find that the petitioner(s) would get any benefit of the policy dated 16.10.2000.

Dismissed.