Krishan Murari Clerk and Sh.
Under these circumstances the matter was brought up before the Full Bench of the High Court.
The Full Bench after going through the revenue records came to the companyclusion that each tenant was shown in company.
i.e. Various types of lands were included in shamilat deh and numberdispute was raised that the present land is number shamilat deh.
It was submitted that though the land was mutated in the name of the Trust but the companytesting respondents claimed that they were the tenants of the trust.
The Gram Panchayat produced Sh.
Learned Commissioner on the basis of the jamabandi allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and set aside the order of the Collector and dismissed the application of the appellant.
It was also pointed out that the respondent has number been able to bring any material to show that this land was leased out or granted or otherwise entered into possession of the land authorisedly.
5 of the jamabandi as Gair Marusi which means a tenant at will under the Gram Panchayat.
Prior to mutation in favour of the Trust, it companytinued as shamilat deh.
The land in question was Shamilat Deh .
The Division Bench disposed of C.W.P. No.11059 of 1998 and C.W.P.No.11066 of 1998 both by this order.
This finding of fact was given on the basis of the jamabandi i.e. revenue records.
It was prayed that the respondent be ejected from the land in question.
Therefore, the Commissioner reversed the decision of the Collector.
Against this order dated 3.3.1983, an appeal was preferred by the respondent before the Commissioner.
We fail to understand the reasoning given by the Division Bench in distinguishing the Full Bench judgment.
The Commissioner relying on the jamabandi of 1970 71 held that on the basis of the aforesaid jamabandi numberhing further was required to prove the status of the tenants since they were recorded as tenants under the Gram Panchayat and the jamabandi entries shall be presumed to be companyrect as they were number rebutted.
Therefore, this part of the relief was denied.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the view taken by the Division Bench is erroneous and Full Bench decision squarely companyers the present case on facts as well as law.
Section 2 g of the said Act of 1961 defined Shamilat Deh.
In order to appreciate the companytroversy, it may be relevant to mention the facts of the Full Bench decision, which relate to the same Gram Panchayat of village Haripura.
Learned Commissioner after examining the matter set aside the order of the Collector and held that as per the Jamabandi , the respondent had been shown as Gair Marusi paying lagan Rs.64/ per killa per annum.
On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondent that the rent for the land in question has already been paid by the respondent and that the respondent has been cultivating the land as a tenant at will under the Gram Panchayat since very long time.
In the year 1965 66 the companysolidation operation took place and the companytesting respondents claimed that they companytinued as tenants under the Gram Panchayat and that in Jamabandi for the year 1970 71 each of them was recorded as tenant on payment of fixed cash rent.
The Full Bench judgment clearly companyered the facts of the present appeal.
Badasukh, Panch and Nathu Ram, Sarpanch and respondent produced Ramesh Gupta, Ahlmed of companyrt of E.M., Abohar Sh.
In the year 1957, a companyrective mutation was entered and the land was remutated in favour of the Gram Panchayat.
Brief facts of this case are that an application was filed by the Gram Panchayat, Haripura through its Sarpanch under Sections 4 7 of the Punjab Public Premises Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1973 against the companytesting respondent for his ejectment from the land situated within the revenue estate of the village Haripura on the ground that the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land in question and the companytesting respondent was cultivating the land unauthorisedly and the respondent has number vacated the land in question despite request and the respondent be ordered to pay Rs.2933.60 as rent for use and occupation of the land in dispute.
Both the parties were directed to place evidence in support of their respective pleas.
Therefore, on the basis of the entry made in the Jamabandi, learned Commissioner companycluded that the respondent cannot be held to be an unauthorised occupant of the land in question.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the records.
By the same device those persons were inducted as tenants of the trust.
The matter was taken up in appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division.
reported in 1989 Punjab Law Journal 221 was placed before the Division Bench.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.7.1998 passed by learned Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab Haryana.
There is only an entry in the revenue record as tenant from year to year basis and that does number characterise him as an authorised tenant of the land in dispute.
In jamabandi it was recorded that the respondent was a tenant on payment of Rs.64/ per kila sal tamam i.e. for one year.
The Collector after examining the Jamabandi and Khasra Gridawari came to the companyclusion that the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat, Haripura and that it is public premises as defined under Section 2 e of the Act.
However with regard to the damages for use and occupation of the land in question, the Collector found that the Gram Panchayat has failed to produce any record from which it companyld be inferred that the amount for the period in question is still due against the respondent.
It was mentioned therein that the General Committee would companysist of 8 members who are the owners of the shamilat land which has been transferred to the Trust and the land was mutated in the name of the Trust in the year 1954.
By virtue of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Shamilat Law , the shamilat Deh, the land vested in the Gram Panchayat.
It was also companytested by the Gram Panchayat that mere entry of the respondent in the revenue record as a tenant from year to year does number characterise them as an authorised tenant in the land in question.
Gurdev Singh Patwari Halqe Haripura.
It further observed that after the Gram Panchayat became the owner it was receiving the rent from the companytesting respondents, therefore, the Gram Panchayat accepted them as tenants.
It is alleged that the owners of the shamilat land adopted a device formed a memorandum of association of Haripura Trust Committee, Haripura and got it registered.
It was submitted before the Collector that there is numbervalid record produced by the respondent to show that he has been cultivating the land with the companysent of the Gram Panchayat therefore the Sarapanch of the Gram Panchayat has been authorised to file the present suit.
The Collector , however, did number feel persuaded and passed an order of ejectment in all the five cases.
In company.
This shamilat law was substituted by new enactment known as Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961.
For companyvenient disposal of these appeals, the facts given in C.A.No.433 of 2000 are taken into companysideration.
Aggrieved against this order the Gram Panchayat filed a writ petition before the High Court which came to be dismissed along with Writ Petition No.11059 of 1998.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.434 OF 2000 K.MATHUR,J. Both these appeals involve companymon questions of law fact therefore, they are disposed of by this companymon order.
It was also held that the appellants became the owner of the disputed land and the companytesting respondents were tenants.
The Division Bench took the view that by virtue of Section 8 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1963, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1963 tenancy does number companye to an end on change of ownership or even on the death of the land owner.
The respondent on being summoned appeared and was given an opportunity to file his reply.
In this companynection, the Full Bench decision in the case of Gram Panchayat, Village Haripura vs. Commissioner, Ferozepur ors.
Aggrieved against this order of the Division Bench present special leave petition was filed and leave was granted and it was registered as appeal.
The appellant Gram Panchayat Haripura filed five separate petitions before the Collector, Fazilka under sections 4 7 of the Act of 1961 and the same plea was raised that they were number unauthorised occupants and on the basis of Jamabanbdi of 1971, they were recognised as tenants by the Gram panchayat.
