Case Note & Summary
The appeal by special leave arose from the order of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated June 11, 1979 in writ petition No.1944/79. The appellants came into possession of the lands in question as tenants twenty years prior to 1975 and their lease expired in 1975. No fresh lease was granted thereafter. The lands were Shamlat Deh lands vested in the Gram Panchayat. The High Court, relying upon its earlier decisions, held that under Section 7 of the Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 read with Rules 19 and 20 of the Rules, the Assistant Collector of the first grade was empowered to have the appellants ejected and that the notice issued under Rule 20 could not be said to be invalid. The main legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether Rule 19 was beyond the rule-making power because the parent Act did not define 'unauthorised occupant' and whether the notice issued under Rule 20 was invalid because it required the appellant to show cause against ejectment in a manner contrary to Rule 20. The appellant's counsel contended that Rule 19 could not specify an unauthorised occupant and was therefore ultra vires. The Court examined Rule 19, which elaborated categories of unauthorised occupation including entry into possession otherwise than under an allotment, lease or grant; determination or cancellation of allotment, lease or grant; and subletting or contravention of terms. Rule 20 prescribed the procedure for issue of notice to show cause against eviction. The Court also considered Section 7, which empowers an Assistant Collector of the first grade to eject any person in wrongful or unauthorised possession of Shamlat Deh land after summary enquiry and to put the Panchayat in possession, and Section 13-B, which transfers pending civil suits to the Assistant Collector. The Court held that a conjoint reading of these provisions clearly indicated that the conspectus of the operation of the Act was intended to have unauthorised occupants ejected by a specified officer invested with power and jurisdiction to evict unauthorised occupants from lands vested in the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the contention that the Government was devoid of power to make Rule 19 was without force. As to the notice under Rule 20, the Court observed that though the contention that the appellant was called upon to give grounds for not being ejected was prima facie attractive, on the facts there was no substance because the appellant had admitted being in unauthorised occupation after the expiry of the lease. They were liable to be ejected unless they showed any other legal right for their continuance in possession. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Delegated Legislation - Validity of Rule 19 - Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Section 7 read with Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rules 19 and 20 - The appellant contended that Rule 19 was ultra vires because the Act did not define 'unauthorised occupant' and Rule 19 could not supply such a definition. The Court held that Rule 19 elaborately defines categories of unauthorised occupation and, read with Section 7 and Rule 20, the statutory scheme clearly intended to invest a specified officer with power to evict unauthorised occupants from Shamlat Deh lands. Held that the contention was without force (Pages 1-3). B) Punjab Land Law - Ejectment of Unauthorised Occupants from Shamlat Deh - Section 7 of Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 empowers Assistant Collector First Grade to evict persons in wrongful or unauthorised possession of Shamlat Deh lands vested in Gram Panchayat - The lands were Shamlat Deh vested in Gram Panchayat; the appellants' lease expired in 1975 and no fresh lease was granted. Held that the appellants were in unauthorised occupation unless they could show any other legal right for continuance in possession (Pages 1, 3-4). C) Civil Procedure - Notice to Show Cause Under Rule 20 - Validity of notice requiring occupant to show cause against eviction - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 20 - The appellant argued that the notice required him to give grounds for not being ejected, contrary to Rule 20. The Court found the contention prima facie attractive but on facts had no substance because the appellant admitted unauthorised occupation after expiry of the lease. Held that the notice could not be said to be invalid (Pages 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 19 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules is beyond the rule-making power of the State Government because the parent Act does not define 'unauthorised occupant'; Whether the notice issued under Rule 20 was invalid on the ground that it required the appellant to show cause against ejectment in a manner contrary to Rule 20.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court order and held that Rule 19 was valid and the notice under Rule 20 was not invalid on facts. The appellants were in unauthorised occupation after expiry of lease and were liable to be ejected unless they showed any other legal right for continuance in possession.
Law Points
- Rule 19 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules
- 1964 validly defines unauthorised occupation
- Section 7 of Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) Act
- 1961 empowers Assistant Collector First Grade to evict unauthorised occupants from Shamlat Deh
- Tenants whose lease expired are unauthorised occupants unless they show legal right
- Notice under Rule 20 valid if occupant admits unauthorised occupation
- Rule-making power not exceeded by defining unauthorised occupant
- Shamlat Deh lands vest in Gram Panchayat
