Holding

The Supreme Court held that Rule 19 is not ultra vires, the notice under Rule 20 is valid, and the Assistant Collector is empowered to evict the appellants as unauthorized occupants.

Summary

The appellants had occupied certain Shamlat Deh lands as tenants for about twenty years before 1975, after which their lease expired and no new lease was granted. The lands are vested in the Gram Panchayat. The Assistant Collector, invoking Section 7 of the Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and Rules 19 and 20 of the Rules, issued a notice of eviction. The High Court held that the Assistant Collector was empowered to evict unauthorized occupants and that the notice was valid. On appeal, the Supreme Court rejected the contention that Rule 19 was ultra vires and affirmed that the notice under Rule 20 was proper, finding the appellants to be unauthorized occupants liable to be evicted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 19 of the Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) Rules is ultra vires the Act.
Whether the notice issued under Rule 20 is valid and within the powers conferred by Section 7 of the Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
Whether the Assistant Collector has authority to evict occupants whose lease has expired and no fresh lease has been granted.

Legislation cited

Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887

Subjects

unauthorised occupationevictionShamlat DehPunjab Common Lands ActRule 19Rule 20lease expiryassistant collector powersland revenue

Judgment

A GURNAM SINGH AND ORS.
v.
THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL), KAITHAL AND ORS.

MARCH 12, 1996

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]

Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 : Sections 7 and 13-B.

Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) Rules : Rules 19 and 20.

C Tenancy and Land law~ram Panchayal-Slzamlat Dah lands-Un-
auth01ised occupant-Eviction of-Appellants in possession of lands in ques-
tion as tenant 20 years p1ior to 1975-Expily of lease in 1975-No fresh lease
gra/l/ed-High Cowt holding that Assistant Collector 1st class was em-
powered to eject appellallls and notice issued under Rule 20 was valid-Ap-
D peaHield appe//a/I/ being in ww1thorised occupation after expi1y of lease
were liable to be ejected unless they show any other legal 1ight for colltinuance
in possessio1>-Rule 19 held not ultra vires. "-

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3200 of
1979.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.9.79 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 5747 of 1975.

P.P. Juneja for the Appellants.

F R.P. Sharma, (NP) for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court made on June 11, 1979 in
G writ petition No. 1944/79.
The admitted facts are that the appellants came into possession of
the lands in question as tenants 20 years prior to 1975 and the lease had
expired in the year 1975. Thereafter, no fresh lease was granted to the
appellants. It is not in dispute that the lands are Shamlat Deb lands vested
H in the Gram Panchayat. The High Court relying upon its earlier decision
298
GURNAM SINGH v. SUB-DIVNL. OFFICER (C) 299

has held that under Section 7 of the Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) A
,;'-. Act, 1961 read with Rules 19 and 20 of the Rules the Assistant Collector,
1st class has been empowered to have the appellants ejected and the notice
issued under Rule 20 cannot be said to be invalid. Thus, this appeal by
special leave.

Shri P.P. Juneja, learned counsel for the appelllants, contended that B
Rule 19 is bad in law since the Act did not define as to who is an
unauthorised occupant; that Rule 19 cannot specify an unauthorised oc-
cupant; and that, therefore, it is beyond the rule making power. We find
no force in the contention

Rule 19 elaborately states thus :
c
"19. For the purpose of Section 7 of the Act, a person shall be
deemed to be in unauthorised occupation of any land in Shamlat
Deh:
D
(a) where he has, whether before or after the commencement of
the Act, entered into possession thereof, otherwise than under and
in pursuant of any allotment, leased or grant by the Panchayat; or

(b) where, he being an allottee, lessee or granatee, has by reason
of the determination or cancellation of his allotment, lease or grant E
in accordance with the terms in that behalf therein contained
ceased whether before or after the commencement of the Act, to
be entitled to occupy or hold such land in Shamlat Deh; or

(c) where any person authorised to occupy any land in Shamlat F
Deh, has whether before or after the commencement of the Act :

(i) Sublet, in contravention of the terms of allotment, lease or grant
without the permission of the Panchayat or of any other authority
competent to permit such sub-letting, the whole or any part of such
land in Shamlat Deh; or G
(ii) Otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms express
or implied under which he is authorised to occupy such land in
Shamlat Deh.

Explanation : H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996J 3 S.C.R.

A For purposes of clause {a) a person shall not merely, by reason of
the fact that he has paid any rent, be deemed to have entered into
possession as allottee, lessee or grantee." -.- '"
Rule 20 specifies the procedure as under :

B "20. Issue for Notice to show cause against order of eviction.

(Sections 7 and 15(2) (k)-(1). If the Assistant Collector of the Isl
grade is of opinion that any person are in unauthorised occupation
of or claim interest in the land in shamlat deb situated within his ,_
jurisdiction and that they should be evicted, he shall issued in the
c manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all
the persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction
should not be made.

(2) The notice shall -
D
(a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed
to be made; and
~

(b) require all persons concerned, that is to say all persons who
are or may be, in occupation of or claim interest in shamlat deb,
E to show cause, if any against the proposed order notice being a
date not earlier than ten days from the date of issue thereof.

(3) The Assistant Collector shall cause the notice to be affJXed
outside the panchayat ghar or any other building used as office by
the Panchayat and at some conspicuous places of the estate in •
F which the land in Shamlat Deb is situated, whereupon the notice
~

shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned.

(4) where the Assistant Collector knows or has reasons to believe
that any persons are in occupation of the land in shamlat deb, then
G without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (3) he may cause a
copy of the notice to be served on every such person by post, or
by delivering or tendering it to that person." ~

Section 7 and 13-B read as under :

H "7. (1) An Assistant Collector of the first grade having jurisdiction
)-
GURNAM S!NGHv. SUB-DIVNL. OFFICER (C) 301

in the village may, either suo motu or on an application made to A
him by the Panchayat or an inhabitant of Village or the Block
Development and Panchavat Officer or Social Education and
- '
Panchayat Officer by the Block Development and Panchayat Of-
ficer, after making such summary enquiry as he may deem fit and
in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed, eject any B
person who is in wrongful or unauthorised possession of the land
or other immovable property in the Shamlat Deh of that village
which vests or is deemed do have been vested in the Panchayat
under this Act and put the Panchayat in possession thereof and
for so doing the Assistant Collector of the first grade may exercise
the powers of a revenue Court in relation to the execution of a C
decree for possession of land under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.

(2) This Assistant Collector of the first grade may, by an order, in
writing, require any person to pay a penalty, in respect of the land
or other immovable property which was or has been in his wrongful D
or unauthorised possession, at a rate not less than six hundred
rupees and not more than two thousand and five hundred rupees
per hectare per annum, having regard to the benefit which could
be derived· from the land or other immovable property. If the
penalty is not paid within the period of thirty days from the date E
of the order, the same shall be recoverable as arrears of land
revenue.

(3) If any person refused or fails to comply with the order of
eviction passed under sub-section (1) within ten days of the date
of such order, the Assistant Colletor of the first grade may use F
such force, including police force, as may be necessary for putting
the panchayat in possession.

(4) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Collector
of the first grade may within a period of thirty days from the date G
of the order, prefer an appeal to the Collector, in such form and
11
manner, as may be prei;cribed.

"13-B. All suits pending in any Civil Court in respect of any land
or other immovable property wherein relief has been claimed on
the ground of its being excluded from Shamlat Deb under clause H
·~\

302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A (g) of Section 2 or on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section
(3) of Section 4 against the Panchayat, shall stand transferred to
and the fresh proceedings for seeking relief on the aforesaid ,- r.
grounds shall be instituted before the Assistant Collector of the
first grade having jurisdiction in the village wherein the land or
other immovable property is suitable who shall dispose of the same
B
in the manner laid down in sub-sections (5) and (7) of Section
13-A."

A conjoint reading of these provisions would clearly indicate that the
conspectus of the operation of the Act was intended to have unauthorised
C occupants ejected by specified officer who has been invested with power
and jurisidction to evict unauthorised occupants from the possession of the
lands vested in the Gram Panchayat. The contention, therefore, that the
Government is devoid of power to make Rule 19 is without force. The
further contention of Shri Juneja is that contrary to the specifications
mentioned in Rule 20, the appellant was called upon to give the grounds
D for his not being ejected which is in derogation of the language in which
Rule 20 is couched. Though prima facie the contention is attractive, on the
facts we do not find any substance in the contention. On his own admission
that the appelllants are in unauthorised occupation after the expiry of the
lease, they are liable to be ejected unless they show any other legal right
E for their continuance in possession. Under these circumstances, we do not
think that there is any substance in the appeal.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

T.NA. Appeal dismissed.