Nathu Ram vs Joint Development Commissioner and Others

Jasbir Singh, J.—This appeal has been filed by a law breaker, who is forcibly enjoying more than 94 kanal of land, owned by the Gram Panchayat, for the last more than four decades, without payment of any rent either to the Gram Panchayat or to any member of the Jumla Mushtarka Malkaans. Before us, it has frankly been admitted by counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant is not a Khewatdar in the village and at the time of consolidation proceedings, he has not contributed even a single inch of land, when the land was separated/earmarked to use it for the common purposes of the village.

Facts reveal that the Gram Panchayat has filed an application u/s 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), seeking ejectment of the Appellant from the land in dispute. The Appellant also filed an application u/s 11 of the Act, alleging that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute and be declared as such. Both the applications were taken up together. Application filed by the Appellant was allowed by the competent authority, whereas that of the Gram Panchayat was dismissed.

The Gram Panchayat went in appeal. The Commissioner, in his order dated 2.12.2004, after noting evidence in detail, especially, by making reference to the revenue record in the shape of Jamabandis, which were brought on record by the parties, has observed as under:

After hearing the arguments of both the parties and after verifying the record submitted by the Patwari, I came to the conclusion that this fact of the Collector is wrong that the Respondent is continuously coming in possession of the disputed land before 26.1.1950. The collector did not try to inspect the revenue record. According to the Revenue record for the year 1961-62, Gram Panchayat is the owner in possession of the Khasra No. 87/1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and Khasra No. 88/5 of the disputed land. The similar entries have been done in Jamabandi for the year 1966-67. According to the Jamabandi for the year 1971-72, ownership of "Nagar Panchayat" is shown and on khasra Nos. 87/1, 2, 3, 9 Mohinder Ram s/o Khasra Chand and Natha s/o Ganda Ram have been shown as Chakotedar @ Rs. 20/- per killa per year. Similarly, on Khasra No. 87/4, 5, Dari Ram s/o Harbana is shown as Cultivator. According to Khasra Girdwari during the year 1972-77, according to the abovesaid serial Nos. , ownership of Nagar Panchayat Deh'' has been shown and on the different khasra Nos. Mohinder Ram, Dari Ram, Natha Ram, Natha Ram, Atma Ram have been shown as cultivators. The Respondent has not produced any proof in this Hon''ble Court vide which it is proved that they are the owners of this land. By accepting the appeal of the owners of this land. By accepting the appeal of the Gram Panchayat, the impugned orders has been set aside and ordered that this land vests in Gram Panchayat. By sending the copy of Khasra Girdawari for the year 1950 to 1962-63 produced by the Appellant to the Collector, it is directed that he should conduct a enquiry of these documents and if these Khasra Girdawari are found to be wrong at its initial stage, then the Criminal case should be registered against the Respondents and concerned official/Employee of the Revenue Deptt. Information be sent to the Head Office within one month about taking the action.

Thereafter, the Appellant filed a review application, by stating that he was not heard when order dated 2.12.2004 was passed. The application was dismissed vide order dated 6.7.2007.

Then the Appellant came to this Court by filing CWP No. 11917 of 2007, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.11.2010, on three counts (i) that the land was shown in the revenue record as Shamlat Deh Hasab Hisaj Mundarja Sajra Nasab and in possession of the Gram Panchayat/Makbooja Malkaan, as such, it belongs to the Gram Panchayat, (ii) that the Appellant has failed to connect the land in his possession with the land owned by the Gram Panchayat before the year 1950 and (iii) that after taking the land on lease, the Appellant has failed to vacate the same.

Counsel for the Appellant has vehemently contended that the land was Banjar Kadim when Shamlat law came into existence in the year 1954 as such, it would not be a part of shamlat deh land. To say so, reference has been made to a copy of the Misal Hakiat (P3), which was prepared on the conclusion of consolidation proceedings, showing old and new khasra numbers.

It is true that the nature of the land was shown as Banjar Kadim. Be that as it may, to that extent, finding given by the Court below may not be as per record. However, it will not make any difference so far as non-suiting of the Appellant on other counts is concerned.

Admittedly, the Appellant is not a Khewatdar in the village. He has not contributed even a single inch of land towards Shamlat deh land and Jumla Mushtarka Malkaan land, which was kept separate at the time of consolidation proceedings. In view of that the claim of the Appellant that he was owner in possession was rightly rejected by the Courts below. The Appellant has failed to bring on record any document to show that he was owner of the land in dispute and further that under what circumstances, he had entered in possession of the land in question. It has been noted by the learned Single Judge that the entries appears to have been manipulated in the revenue record. Not only as above, it has been observed, as a matter of fact, which, counsel for the Appellant has failed to rebut at the time of arguments, that the Appellant has taken the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat. To say so, reference was made to the entries made in the lease register maintained by the Gram Panchayat. Once, it is proved on record and not rebutted before us at the time of arguments that the Appellant had taken the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat, when failed to vacate, he has become unauthorized occupant of the same.

Under the circumstances, he is not entitled to get any relief from this Court. The Appellant has acted contrary to the principles of rule of law. He has used land of the Gram Panchayat for more than four decades without any authority. Such an individual is not entitled to get any relief from this Court. It was so held by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 721 of 2011, titled as Zile Singh v. The State of Haryana and Ors. decided on 20.4.2011, in which, it was observed as under:

We feel that the order passed is perfectly justified. Even before us not a slightest evidence has been shown to negative the finding given by the learned Single Judge that the Appellant had forcibly occupied five acres of land. The sale was subject to a confirmation. The Appellant had deposited only Rs. 2250/-, rest of the amount was yet to be paid. Without waiting for the confirmation, he entered in possession of the land and is enjoying the same for the last more than 25 years. Such a person who is a law breaker is not entitled to get any relief from the Court when exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Our view is supported by ratio of the Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in Anil Kumar Khurana v. M.C.D. 1996 (36) DRJ(DB)558, in which it was observed as under: 19. In an equitable jurisdiction it is the duty of the Court to preserve the public good. The writ Court cannot protect the wrong. A person who seeks equity must do equity. No one can be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. A person who has committed a wrong may not be heard by a writ Court in support of the plea that the authority which is taking action against him has no power or jurisdiction and such power vests in another statutory authority. The law breakers can be refused equitable relief assuming they may have some case on merits. The writ Court can deny hearing to such law breakers.

We make it very clear that if the Gram Panchayat has not initiated any action against the Appellant to realize an amount towards use and occupation of the land, the Gram Panchayat shall move an application immediately and realize the charges from the Appellant towards unauthorized occupation of the land for more than four decades.

No case is made out to condone the delay as well.