POWER TO RECOVER [RENT OR-IN HR. ONLY], DAMAGES IN RESPECT OF PUBLIC PREMISES AS ARREARS OF LAND REVENUE

(1) Where any person is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises, the Collector may, by order, require that person to pay the same within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order. (2) Where any person is, or has at any time been in unauthorised occupation of any public premises the Collector may having regard to such principles of assessment of damages as may be prescribed, assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of such premises and may, by order require that person to pay the damages within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order. (3) No order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), shall be made against any person until after the issue of a notice in writing by the person calling upon him to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice why such order should not be made, and until his objections, if any, and any evidence he may produce in support of the same have been considered by the Collector. COMMENTARY 1. For authorised occupation of public premises or land no recovery of rent can be made under Section 7 of the Act, 1975 PLJ 204. 2. Power of Collector and Assistant Collector to evict-Authority under the Act statutory provision are ultravires. 1982 ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 210, GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE KAILA BANDAR VS. COMMISSIONER PTL. DIVISION PATIALA. 3. Lessee of the Panchayat cannot avail of the special procedure :- The provisions of Section 7 of the Punjab village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1969 are meant to safeguard the interest of panchayats and to put them into possession, the Panchayat may take action under Section 7, but the person in possession if dispossessed by a third person cannot resort to the provisions of Section 7, 1964 Cur. LJ 375-66 PLR 959. 4. Power to get back possession, when the premises transferred.- Where the premises are transferred by way of a sale then the provisions of Section 7 cannot be resorted to get the possession back. ILR 1965(1) Pb. 245 5. Giving notice of a period less than prescribed by law.-Where notice of a period less than that prescribed by law is given than the notice is not bad. AIR 1963 Pb. 290 6. Requirement to give show cause notice is mandatory.- The person against whom proceeding are taken should be given notice and the ground on which it is proposed to take action should be communicated-Where the grounds are not disclosed then the order Cannot be sustained. 1962 PLR 977. 7. Default in appearance; Its effect.-Where the Panchayat does not appear then the petition can be dismissed in default by the Collector-Collector however has inherent powers to restore the petition dismissed in default. 1968 PLR 163. 8. Petition for ejectment and recovery of rents.-A petition for recovery of rent would for maintainable even if the prayer for recovery of possession is held to be ultravires. It was held that the petition for arrears of rent Would still be maintainable as otherwise Section 10 will preclude the Panchayat from establishing its title in a court of law. AIR 1968 Pb. 163. 9. Special remedy, provision are not ultravires.- The procedure for getting possession provided under section 7 is not ultra vires because it is essential to have a speedy remedy- In this connection the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Chagan Lal v. Greater Bombay Municipality, AIR 1974 SC 2009 may be seen. In this case the earliest decision of the Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. state of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1381 was held to be bad law and was over ruled. It was observed as under:-"where a statute providing for a more drastic procedure different from the ordinary procedure covers the whole field covered by ordinary procedure, as in Anwar AliSakar's case, AIR 1952 SC 75 and Suraj MallMohtaj case, AIR 1954 SC545 without any guidelines as to the class of cases in which either procedure is to be resorted to the statute will be hit by Article 14. Even there as mentioned in Suraj Mall Mohtaj's case, a provision for appeal may cure the defect. Further in such case if from the preamble and surrounding circumstances, as well as the 12 provisions of the statute themselves explained and appeal filed by affidavits, necessary, guidelines could be inferred as in Saurashtra case AIR 1855 sc 123 and Jyoti Parshad's case. AIR 1961 SC 1962 the statute will not be hit by Article 14. Then again where the statute itself covers only a class as in Haldal case, AIR 1953 SC 404 the statute will not be bad. The fact that in such case the executive will choose which cases are to be tried under the special procedure will not effect the validity to the statute, Therefore, the content on that the mere availability of two procedures will vitite one of them, that is the special procedure, is not supported by reason of authority. The further observations made that the act is not bad because two remedies have been provided was considered and rejected with these observations :"merely because one procedure provides the forum of a civil court while the other provides the forum of an administrative tribunal, if cannot be said that the latter is necessarily more drastic and onerous. To attract the inhibition of Article 14 there must be substantial and qualitative differences between the two procedures so that one is really and substantially more drastic and prejudicial. Superfine differences are bound to exist when two procedures are prescribed. 10. Officer issuing notice is not party to the lis- Merely because a notice is issued by the estate officer, it cannot be said that he is a party to the lis and that there is violation of the principle of natural justice, AIR 1967 Delhi 86, See also ILR 1961 Bom. 671 Bom. 671 Bom AIR 1970 Punjab 407. 11. Rent includes license fee.- A licence fee included in the deninition of rent and can be legitimately recovered a arrears of land revenu. 67 P.L.R. 1120. 12. Opportunity should be given.- An action taken without giving show cause notice cannot be sustained. Wirenetting stores v. Delhi Development Authority. 1966. 3 SCC 415. 13. Revision under Section 115 C.P.C against the order of appellate-authority.- Where an appeal lies to District Judge against the order of viction then no revision can be entertained under section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure. AIR 1966 MP 7, See also 1969 Punjab 304 and AIR 1972 Tripura 1 . 14. Power of civil court to decide question of title.- Where it is claimed that the premises in question are owned by a person then the civil courts can go into the question of title. The civil courts is not precluded from deciding such a question. 1968 All. L.J. 493. 15. Cancellation of lease.- Where lease is cancelled or is varied then it has to be accompanied by payment of compensation. This is so provided in section 10 (a) of the Act. Mansha Singh v Commissioner, Ambala Division, AIR 1974 PLR 21. 16. Tenancy cannot be terminated by passing a mere resolution- The Gram Panchayat has to establish that the tenant has contrav ned any of the terms of the grant. The Gram Panchayat cannot by passing a mere resolution terminate a tenancy which has been lawfully consituted. 1974 PLR 21. 17. Power of resumption.- Once land is given to a person on grant loan the same cannot be resumption proceedings initiated by the authorities under the Public Premises (Eviction of Occupants Act), 1971 are not maintainable. 1972 Rent C R. 718. 18. Agricultural and Included in the definition of premises:- The Permises would include even agricultural land. See AIR 1972 SC 2205, AIR 1964 Pb, 304. 19. Possession when becomes unauthorised.-- The possession would become anauthorised after the expiry of notice-AIR 1968 Cal. 1. But where a person transfers his possession to another then the occupation would become unauthorised from the date of transfer and not from the date of Issue of notice. 1965 (69) Cal.W.N. 1035. 20. Appointment of office.- where powers' are conferred on a person by virtue of his office then the appointment would be by reason of Section 15 of the General Clauses Act 1897, AIR 1964 Tripura 9 21. Private knowledge on the part of the authority eviction.- The fact that the authority ordering eviction has personal knowledge in respect of the question whether the premises have been occupied in an unauthorised manner or not would not vitiate the final order. AIR 1964 Delhi 86. 22. Notice should specify the premises correctly.- The description of the premises should be correctly given in the notice otherwise the proceedings would be bad.-This defect cannot be cured at a stage. AIR 1964 Tripura 9. 23. Recovery of time barred rent.- The provision of section 7 merely create a remedy and does not confer a new right.- Thus a time barred rent cannot be recovered. 1965 PLR 1190. 24. Appellate authority should give a regular hearing.- The appellate authority is supposed to give a regular hearing. AIR 1961 Pb. 98. 25. Additional evidence can be taken in appeal.- There is nothing in law which prevents the appellate authority from recording additional evidence in appeal. AIR 1962 Patna 476. 26. Second Appeal not competent.- The right of second appeal has been taken away both in states of the Punjab and Haryana by amendments made by both the States, 1976 PLR 388 . 27. Year means Calender Year.- Where the lease of Panchayat land is granted for one year. the term 'Year' would mean a Calender year. Hardev Singh vs. Executive Magistrate, 1976 PLR 35. 28. Possession of land without payment of rent.- A person in possession of land of Panchayat without paying any rent is not a tenant-Hazara Singh v. B.S. Malik 1967 Cur. LJ 137. Sec also Darbara Singh v. State 1976 PLJ 47. 29. Person paying lease money but not taking possession.-A person paying instalment of lease money but not taking possession of the land is not a lessee. Karta Ram v. state 1956 PLR 1143. 30. Person entered as Gair Morosi is not a tenant.- A person who is entered in Khasra Girdawri as Gair Marosi is not a tenant unless some other evidence is brought on the record to suggest otherwise. ILR 1967 Punjab 846. 31. Payment of arrears of Rent after the decree of eviction, is no reason to get an ad interim stay against eviction-Action does not give a tenant a status of holdingover-As for rent arrears, these had to be paid-Civil Procedure Code 1908, O. 39, Rr 1 and 2-1992 (1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER_134 32 ss. 4 and 7-Respondent No.3 who has been granted eviction of tenant by the lower Court, is not shown in the record of rights as owner of the land-Presumption of truth is attached to record of rights- Order of eviction quashed. 1992(1)ALL INDIALAND LAWS REPORTER239 . 33.-Sections 4 and 7- Occupant is prayed to be evicted by Gram Panchayat after expiry of Jamabandi entries in the record of rights-Land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat-Impugned order of the lower Courts cannot be sustained-Order of eviction quashed-1991 (1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS. REPORTER 508. 34.-Section 7-Municipality maintains a record of the property belonging to it- No such record produced-Questions Of ownership of public premises cannot be decided in summary trial under writ jurisdiction of India Art. 226 and 227. 1992. (1) All INDIA LAND LAWS" REPORTER 238 35. The conclusion arrived at by the prescribed authority that a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat is not a tenant cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution. This is a question basically one of fact and would not be interfered with under Article 226. Mahan Singh v. Resident Magistrate 1965 Cur. LJ 37, 1965 PLR 161. --Section 7-Expiry of term of lease-Gram Panchayat can dispossess by taking action U/S. 7 or under any other provision of law available to them 1998 (1)All INDIA LAND LAVVS REPORTER 609. Section 7-Limitation Act, 1963-Articles 112 and 113-Petitioner denies having been in possession of public premises and further resents the recovery of rent as time barred-Once it is held that petitioner remained in occupation of Government land, he cannot resist the recovery of rent/damages as barred by limitation--As held in 1983(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 572, Limitation was 30 years under Article 117-Article 113 would not be applicable; Gajjan Singh v. State of Punjab; 1997(2) All INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 121. Ss. 7 and 10-On expiry of tenure of service an employee of the L.I.C. was I required to vacate the Premises owned and possessed by L.I.C. -Old not-Clause shown by respondent-employee did not appeal to the L.I .C . and hence an order of eviction-Unsuccessfully challenged before the City Civil court and was not entertained, by the appellate court-In writ jurisdiction the respondent whereas could not demolish the grounds of eviction, clung to plea of despair that in case he went to Small Cause Court, in view of S.10 of the Act; his possession during the pendency of the suit would not remain protected-High Court ordered (i) matte may be taken up before a court of competent authority and (ii) directed the orders of the Estate Officer to be stayed for that period L.I.C. is in appeal-Apex Court held (i) Respondent would gave an undertaking to Vacate the premises within 6 months, quantum of rent and damage to be sympathetically decided by L.I.C. (ii) Retiral dues to be cleared within two months, to enable respondent to seek alternative accommodation; Life Insurance Corporation of India V. Shiva. Prasad Tripathi ; 1996(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (SUPREME COURT) 533. (1) Where any person on whom a notice or order under the Act, has been served, desires to be heard through his representative, he should authorise such representative in writing. (2) The Collector shall record the summary of the evidence produced before him. The summary of such evidence and any relevant documents filed before him shall form part of the records of the proceedings.