9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The said order was passed by the Director in a petition filed by persons claiming to have shares in the Shamlat Deh which shares were entered in the cultivation column as maqbuza malkan. Their contention before the Director was that the Consolidation authorities were not competent to change the title of the right holders and that whatever was entered in the Wajab-ul-Arz had to be made a part of the scheme of the village and had to be adhered to by the consolidation authorities during re-partition proceedings. Secondly they also challenged the mutation. The Director accepted the contention an held that the Panchayat can not lay any claim to the area sine the same was mentioned in the Jamabandi to Be in possession of the Khewatdars namely the right holders and therefore the Panchayat had no right to the land. The Director remanded the matter to the Consolidation authority with a direction that 20 acres of the area should be allowed to the Gram Panchayat and the rest should be partitioned among the right holders namely the Khewatdars. It may be mentioned here that the Panchayat pursued the matter further unsuccessfully. Ultimately the Special Leave Petition filed by it was also dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cessary. As against the said order, Civil Appeal No. 3429/90 is filed and consequently the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in Joginder Singh's case also being questioned. The other Civil Appeal Nos. 3427-3428/90 and 4357/90 are filed by the petitioners-appellants claiming to be the tenants against the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by them following the decision in Joginder Singh's case and the L.P.As. filed by them were also dismissed by the High Court. Since a common question arises, all these appeals are being disposed of together. 4. The Act provides for the compulsory consolidation of agricultural holdings and preventing the fragmentation of agricultural holdings in the State of Punjab and for the assignment or reservation of land for common purposes of the Village. Under Section 14 of the Act, the Government may of its own accord agree or on application declare its intention to make a scheme for consolidation of holdings. Section 16 lays down that the scheme prepared by the Consolidation Officer may provide for the distribution of land held under the occupancy tenure between the tenant holding right of occupancy and his landlord i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot placed any material on record to draw in inference that the land was recorded as shamlat deh in the record of rights. The Division Bench also observed that even otherwise in the scheme of consolidation there are existing adequate shamlat deh lands for common purposes including the purposes of the Gram Panchayat and that the excess land secured from the proprietors pro rata deserves to be re-distribute among the proprietors in accordance with their rights. The Division Bench in detail considered several other aspects concerned with the interpretation of the provisions of the Act. The Division Bench also noticed that the petitioners got priority for cultivation in auction for a year and they had a right to remain in possession for the auction period namely one year. The Division Bench, however, concluded that since the dispute was between the proprietors and the Panchayat, the tenants had no right to be impleaded as respondents before the Director. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants before us contended that since they are tenants in the disputed land as per the leases granted by way of auction by the Gram Panchayat, they are interested parties and they should have been heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing heard. In Mohan Lal v. The State of Punjab 1971 P.L.J. 338, Justice Hegde speaking for the Bench of this Court referred to the ratio laid down in North India Caterers Private Ltd. 's cases and having considered the scope of provisions of Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act observed thus: Under our jurisprudence even an authorised occupant can be evicted only in the manner authorised by law. This is the essence of the rule of law. 11. The appellants in each of these appeals before us claim to be the tenants of the Panchayat. In Joginder Singh's case, the Division Bench also noted the fact that the writ petitioners got the property for cultivation in the auction held by the Panchayat. The Division Bench further observed that lease was only for one year and they had a right to remain in possession only for the auctioned period and after the expiry of that period they had to surrender the suit land to the Gram Panchayat. But the plea of the appellants in each of the case is that they are continuing to be in possession and they are still holding the land on annual patta basis and the patta-name in their favour has been executed by the Gram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It cannot be denied that the impugned order might adversly affect the petitioners by causing shrinkage or disappearance of the surplus area on which they have settled. Surely, they are not trespassers. They have been inducted by the Collector in accordance with a statutory scheme for utilisation of surplus area drawn up under the Tenancy Act. It is true that as a result of the order, dated 20th June, 1967, of the Commissioner, the matter has been re-opened, but that does not mean that the petitioners have ceased to be parties interested' within the meaning of the proviso to Section 42 of the Act. Admittedly, they are still in cultivating possession of the land. They have, not been evicted from the area on which they were settled. 13. Likewise in Gram Panchayat of Village Serohi Behali and Ors. v. Har lal and Ors. 1971 P.L.R. 1009, a Division Bench of the High Court considered the meaning of the words parties interested in the proviso to Section 42 and observed thus: The learned Counsel for the appellants has, however, submitted that the words parties interested in the proviso to Section 42 of the Act only relate to the rightholders and not the tenants or other per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re this Court. The contention was that the Additional Director had no power to review. A Bench of this Court in the said case having examined Section 42 held thus: The proviso to Section 42 lays down that notice to interested parties to appear and opportunity to be heard are conditions precedent to passing of an order under Section 42. The fact that the Additional Director was satisfied that the respondent, Gurdev Singh, did not have an opportunity of being heard due to his illness, seems to us to amount to a finding that the proviso could not be complied with so that the previous order could not be held to be an order duly passed under Section 42 of the Act. It could be ignored as non est . 16. The learned Counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that assuming that the appellants are the tenants in the disputed land they can at the most claim such protection as would be available to them as tenants and if they acquire any rights for being in possession they can assert the same whenever any proceedings are taken before a competent authority to dispossess them. We do not agree that they cannot participate in the dispute between the proprietors and the Panchayat in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
