IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 573-574 OF 2003

Collector, Phagwara & Ors.     .... Appellant (s)

Versus

Brahm Dutt & Anr.             .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) These appeals are directed against the common final  

judgment and order dated 24.04.2000 passed by the High  

Court of  Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil  Writ  

Petition Nos.10490 and 10738 of 1998 whereby the High  

Court  allowed  both  the  writ  petitions  filed  by  the  

respondents herein.

2) Brief facts :

(a) The Tehsildar, Phagwara, Appellant No.3 herein, filed  

two  eviction  petitions  under  Sections  4  and  7  of  the  

1

Punjab  Public  Premises  and  Land  (Eviction  and  Rent  

Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”)  

against  Brahm  Dutt  and  Hari  Saran,  the  respondents  

herein.   In the petition filed against  Hari  Saran,  it  was  

stated that the land bearing Khasra No. 45 Min. North 2-

5, 46 Min. East 2-4 (KM), 47/8-0, 50/8-0, total measuring  

20-K-9M,  bearing  Khewat  No.  24,  Khatauni  No.  109  

situated  in  village  Bishanpur,  Tehsil  Phagwara,  as  per  

Jamabandi  for  the  year  1990-91,  was  owned  by  the  

Punjab  Government  and  the  respondent  had  

unauthorisedly  taken  possession  of  the  same.   In  the  

petition filed against Brahm Dutt, it was stated that as per  

Jamabandi for the year 1975-76 land measuring Khewat  

No. 240 Khatauni No. 240, Khatauni No. 112, Khasra No.  

37/K7  M4  38/8K-0M,  39  Min.  North  2K-4M,  40  Min.  

North 2K-6M total measuring 19K-14M KM belongs to the  

Punjab  Government  and  has  been  unauthorisedly  

occupied by the respondents.  

2

(b) By  orders  dated  23.10.1996  and  24.10.1996,  the  

Collector,  Phagwara,  Dist.  Kapurthala,  ordered  the  

eviction of both the respondents herein.   

(c) Aggrieved  by  the  said  orders,  the  respondents  

preferred  appeals  before  the  Commissioner,  Jalandhar  

under Section 9 of the Act.  By order dated 27.01.1998,  

the  appellate  Authority  –  the  Commissioner,  dismissed  

both the appeals and confirmed the orders passed by the  

Collector.

(d) Questioning the said order, Brahm Dutt filed C.W.P.  

No. 10490 of 1998 and Hari Saran filed C.W.P. No. 10738  

of 1998 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana for  

quashing  the  orders  of  the  Collector  dated  23  &  

24.10.1996  as  well  as  the  order  of  the  Commissioner  

dated 27.01.1998.  In the writ petitions, it was stated by  

the  respondents  herein  that  the  land  in  dispute  were  

earlier  owned by the  Maharaja  of  Kapurthala,  who had  

allowed their fore-fathers to cultivate the land.  It was also  

stated that they had been in possession of the land for  

3

more  than  30  years  and,  therefore,  had  become  the  

owners of the land by adverse possession.  

(e) The  appellants  herein  –  official  respondents,  filed  

written  statement  before  the  High  Court  denying  their  

claim as to possession and asserted that the Government  

is the real owner of the land in dispute.   

(f) By  a  common  order  dated  24.04.2000,  the  High  

Court  allowed  both  the  writ  petitions  and  quashed  the  

orders  passed  by  the  Collector  and  the  Commissioner.  

The High Court  held  that  the  respondents had been in  

possession  of  the  land  by  way  of  grant/gift  from  the  

Maharaja  of  Kapurthala.   It  was also  held  by the  High  

Court  that  the  respondents  had  entered  into  the  

possession  of  land  in  an  authorized  manner  and  had  

become  owners  since  they  had  been  in  possession  for  

more than 30 years.

(g) Aggrieved by the aforesaid common order passed by  

the High Court, the officials of the Government of Punjab  

4

preferred  the  above  appeals  by  way  of  special  leave  

petitions before this Court.

3) Heard Mr. Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the  

appellants  and  Mr.  S.  Balakrishnan,  learned  senior  

counsel for the respondents in both the appeals.

4) After  going through the claim and assertion of  the  

respondents based on certain materials placed before the  

Collector,  Phagwara  and  the  reasoning  of  the  original  

appellate authority as well as the High Court, we intend to  

remit  the  matter  to  the  original  authority,  namely,  the  

Collector,  to  decide  the  question  as  pleaded  by  the  

respondents for the following reasons:

5) In order to arrive at a conclusion, it would be useful  

to  refer  to  these  definitions.   “Premises”  and  “Public  

Premises” are defined in Section 2(d)  and (e)  of  the Act  

which read as follows:

“2(d)   “premises”  means  any  land,  whether  used  for  agricultural or non-agricultural purposes, or any building or  part of a building and includes:-

(i) the  garden,  grounds  and  out-house,  if  any,  appertaining to such building;  or part of a building;  and

5

(ii) any  fittings  affixed  to  such  building  or  part  of  a  building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof;

(e) “public premises” means any premises belonging to, or  taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of the State  Government  and  includes  any  premises  belonging  to,  or  taken on lease by, or on behalf of-

(i) any  Municipal  Committee,  Notified  Area  Committee,  Zila  Parishad,  Panchayat  Samiti,  Panchayat  or  Improvement Trust;

(ii) any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies  Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), in which not less than fifty one  per cent of  the paid-up share capital  is  held by the  State Government; and

(iii) any Corporation [not being a company as defined in  Section 3 of the Companies act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or a  local authority] established by or under a Central Act  as  defined in clause  (7)  of  Section 3 of  the General  Clauses  Act,  1897,  or  a  Punjab  Act  and  owned  or  controlled by the State Government;”

In view of the above definitions, there is no dispute about  

the applicability of the Act.  When notice under Section  

4(1) of the Act was issued to the respondents calling upon  

them as to why an order of ejection be not passed against  

them, they appeared through their counsel and filed their  

reply to the notice alleging that they are the owners and in  

possession of the land in dispute for a period of 30 years.  

They  further  asserted  that  even  though  in  the  revenue  

records,  the  Provincial  Government  is  shown  to  be  its  

owner, yet by adverse possession, they have become the  

6

owners of  the land in dispute.   They also asserted that  

they had been cultivating the land continuously for  the  

last  30  years.  They  made  certain  improvements  in  the  

land and also installed a tubewell in the land in dispute.  

It was also stated that since the name of the respondents  

are  shown  as  cultivators  in  the  Jamabandi  as  “Gair  

Marusi Bina lagan” (without payment of rent) and deemed  

to  be  the  owners,  during  consolidation  proceedings,  

therefore, the Tehsildar or the Government has no concern  

with  the  said  land.   They  also  produced  in  evidence  

Patwari Sarwan Singh Halqa PW-1, Phagwara as well as  

Chanan Singh, Office Qanungo and got their statements  

recorded.   In his evidence,  Patwari  brought the original  

Jamabandi  and stated that the Jamabandi for  the year  

1990-91  was  prepared  by  his  predecessor.   As  per  the  

Jamabandi, the land bearing Khasra No. 45 Min. North 2-

5, 46 Min. East 2-4, 47/8-0, 50/8-0 is shown to be in the  

ownership of the Provincial Government and the name of  

Hari Saran, s/o Karam Chand is mentioned as cultivator  

7

and  similarly  the  land  bearing  Khasra  No.  37/K7  M4,  

38/8K-0M, 39 Min. North, 2K-4M and 40 Min North, 2K-

6M  is  shown  to  be  in  the  ownership  of  the  Provincial  

Government and the name of Brahm Dutt is mentioned as  

cultivator and they are cultivating the said lands and are  

in possession of the same.  Similarly, the Khasra Ex. P-2  

has  also  been  issued  by  his  predecessor  and  he  had  

brought the original register.   

6) No  doubt,  in  the  same  record,  the  Provincial  

Government is the owner of the land in dispute and the  

names  of  both  the  respondents  were  mentioned  as  

cultivators/deemed  owners  (without  payment  of  rent).  

Apart  from the  same,  they  also  appeared  and  asserted  

their  stand  that  they  had  been  in  cultivation  and  

possession of the land in dispute for the last 50 years and  

by adverse possession, they became the owner of the land.  

Though the District Collector adverted to all the materials  

and  assertions  of  the  respondents,  more  particularly,  

about their statements that they were cultivating the land  

8

after  the  grant/gift  of  Maharaja  of  Kapurthala  to  their  

fore-fathers, the said aspect was not looked into.   

7) When the respondents herein filed appeals before the  

Commissioner  under  Section  9  of  the  Act,  without  

adverting  to  any  of  these  material  aspects,  the  

Commissioner dismissed both the appeals  by passing a  

cryptic order.

8) The  High  Court,  without  adverting  to  the  factual  

details, particularly, the assertions of the respondents as  

well as the entries in the Jamabandi for the relevant years  

(Annexures  R-1  to  R-3),  and  without  assigning  valid  

reasons,  set  aside  the  orders  of  the  original  and   the  

appellate Authority.

9) On going through the factual details, the stand of the  

respondents,  their  assertions,  the  statement  of  Patwari  

and the Office Qanungo and the entries in the relevant  

Jamabandi, we feel that the ends of justice would be met  

by  directing  the  original  authority  –  the  Collector,  

Phagwara, to pass fresh order after considering the above  

9

materials and after affording opportunity to all the parties  

concerned.  Both the parties are permitted to lead fresh  

evidence,  if  any,  with  reference  to  their  respective  

claim/stand within a period of eight weeks.  It  is made  

clear  that  we  have  not  expressed  any  opinion  on  the  

claim/stand of both the parties and it is for the Collector  

to  apprise  and  take  a  decision  in  accordance  with  law  

within a period of six months.  In view of the same, we set  

aside the impugned order of the High Court as well as the  

orders of the original authority – Collector, Phagwara and  

the appellate authority – the Commissioner, Jalandhar.   

10) In  the  result,  the  civil  appeals  are  allowed  to  the  

limited extent.  There shall be no order as to costs.  

...…………………………………J.                   (P. SATHASIVAM)  

...…………………………………J.           (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)  

NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 25, 2010.   

1