GRAM PANCHAYAT, VILL HARIPURA versus THE COMMISSIONER, FEROZEPUR DIVISION AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 256 · Decided: 15-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
GRAM PANCHA VAT, VILL HARIPURA 
v. 
THE COMMISSIONER, FEROZEPUR DIVISION AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 15, 2006 
[A.K. MATHUR AND TA RUN CHATTERJEE, 11.] 
land and Tenancy laws: 
Punjab Village Common lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964: Rule 6. 
Execution of lease-Payment and acceptance of rent-Entitlement to 
claim as a tenant-Gram Panchayat filed an application under Ss. 4 and 7 
of the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction anr.! Rent Recovery) Act for ejectment 
of tenants from the land owned by it as the said tenants were cultivating the 
D land unauthorisedly-The Collector. after examining the Jamabandi and 
Khasra Gridawari, concluded that the land belonged to the Gram Panchayat 
and that the tenants were liable to be evicted under Section 5 of the Public 
Premises Act-It was also held that there was only one entry in the revenue 
record to the effect that the tenancy was from year-to-year basis and that did 
not characterize the tenants as authorized tenants of the land in question--
E Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the tenants-However, the High 
Court held that after the Panchayat became the owner it was receiving the 
rent from the tenants and, therefore, the Panchayat accepted them as tenants-
Correctness of-Held: A particular method has been prescribed as to how the 
lease has to be executed as per Rule 6-Deposit of rent or '!Ven acceptance 
of rent by the Gram Panchayat wuuld not make a tenant a lawful tenant 
F under the Gram Panchayat-A lawful tenant is one who has been admitted 
as a tenant after following the due procedure of law-Since the tenants were 
inducted without following the due procedure prescribed under Rule 6, they 
cannot be declared as lawful tenants under the Gram Panchayat-Punjab 
Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, Ss. 4 & 7--Punjab 
G Security of land Tenures Act, 1963, S. 8. 
An application was filed by the appellant-Panchayat under Sections 4 
and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 
against the contesting respondents for their ejectment on the ground that 
the appellant was the owner of the land in question and that the contesting 
II 
256 
... 
GRAM PANCHA YA T, VILL HAR lrURA r. COMMR., FEROZEPUR DIVISION 
25 7 
respondents were cultivating the land unauthorisedly; The Collector, after A 
examining the.Jamabandi and Kha5ra Gridawari, came to the condusion that 
the land belonged to the appellant and that the contesting respondents were 
liable to be evicted under Section S of the Act. It was also held that there was 
only one entry in the revenue record to the effeCt that .the contesting 
respondents were tenants from year-to-year basis and that did not characterize 
them as authorized tenants of the land in dispute. The Commissioner held B 
that as per the ·Jamabandi the contesting respondents had b~en shown as 
tenants paying rent per annum and allowed the appeal filed by them. 
. However, the High Court accepted the reasoning given by the 
Commissioner and held that the contesting respondents were not unauthorized C 
occupants but were tenants of the appellant-Panchayat. It was also held that 
by virtue of Section 8 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1963 
tenancy did not come to an end on change of ownership or even on the death 
of the land o\vner. The High Court further observed that after the appellaut-
Panchayat became the owner it was receiving the rent from the contesting 
respondents and, therefore, the appellant accepted them as tenants. Hence the D 
appeal 
Allowing .the appeal, the Court 
. 
. 
. 
. 
HELD: I. I. A particular method has been prescribed as to how tlw lea~e 
· has lo be.executed as per Rule 6 of the Punjab Village Common Lands E 
(Regulation) Rules, 1964. Therefore, unless proper lease is grai1tcd in the 
manner prescribed in Rule 6 of the Rules till that time simply because someone 
has paid rent that \~Ould not entitle him to claim as a tenant. I~ the absence Of 
statutory provisions and rules thereunder,' it is difficult to accept that since 
the rent had been deposited with the Gram Panchayat that would make the F 
contesting respondents as tenants. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the 
Commissioner and affirmed by the Division Bench of the. Higtl Court cannot 
be sustained. 1264-0, E, FI 
1.2. Simply someone has paid or deposited the rent with the Gram 
Panchayat voluntarily after unauthorisedly occupying the Gram Panchayat G 
land, he would not be deemed to be a tenant. This would l>e 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.