JUDGEMENT
S.S.SARON, J. -
(1.)THE petitioner Balbir Singh by way of present petition under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the order
dated 07.11.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist
Grade, Sonepat (respondent No.4), the order dated 23.07.2008 (Annexure P-
4) passed by the Collector, Sonepat (respondent No.3) and the order dated
(2.)01.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak (respondent No.2) alleging the same to have been passed by
overlooking and ignoring the mandatory provisions regarding deciding the
question of title under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,
1961 (as applicable in the State of Haryana) (Act-for short) and without going through the records of the case. As such the said orders, it is stated
are illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and un-constitutional.
2. The petitioner, it is stated, is 75 years old and is a resident of village Chatiya Aulia, Tehsil and District Sonepat. The subject matter of the
present petition forms part of Khewat No.137 which stood entered as;
'Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat' in the column of ownership and
the name of the father of the petitioner namely Harkesh Singh stood entered
in the column of cultivation along with others in their capacities as
proprietors. A reference has been made to the Jamabandi (Record of Rights)
for the year 1944-45 (Annexure P-1) in this regard. The consolidation
proceedings in village Chatiya Aulia were conducted in the year 1956. The
above said land falling in Khewat No.137 was changed into new numbers
depicted as Rectangle No.24, Killa Nos.4/1, 7/4 and 7/2 total measuring 5
kanals 12 marlas. The entry in the column of ownership and cultivation qua
this land was changed in favour of Gram Panchayat. The 'Misal Haqiat' of
the year 1956 (Annexure P-2) wherein this is so recorded has been placed on
record. It is submitted that in terms of two separate petitions instituted
against the petitioner Balbir Singh by Bhagat Singh (respondent No.6) and
the other by the Gram Panchayat, Chatia Aulia (respondent No.5) the
petitioner along with one Chander Bhan was sought to be evicted from the
disputed land comprised in Rectangle No.24, Killa Nos.4/1 (2-1), 7/2 (1-10)
and 7/4 (2-1) total measuring 5 kanals 12 marlas under Section 7 of the Act.
The petition filed by Gram Panchayat, Chatia Aulia (respondent No.5) was
allowed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sonepat (respondent No.3) by
a consolidated order dated 7.11.2007 (Annexure-P.3) passed in both the
applications. The petitioner consequently stood ejected from the specific
portion of the disputed land of Rectangle No.24, Killa No.4/East 17, West
17, South 11 and North 11 i.e. (17 x 11) measuring 1 kanal 1 marla and Rectangle No.24, Killa No.7/4 area measuring 2 kanals 1 marla and 'Gair
Mumkin Kotha' (room) over Killa No.7/2 area measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas
by cultivating fodder and wheat crop on it along with one Chander Bhan.
The petitioner thereafter instituted two separate appeals against the consolidated order dated 07.11.2007 (Annexure P3) passed by the
Assistant Collector Ist Grade (respondent No.3) in the Court of Collector
(respondent No.4), which has been dismissed vide order dated 23.7.2008
(Annexure-P.4) on the basis of the Jamabandi entries of the year 1999-2000
and the demarcation report dated 23.03.2006. It was held that the appellant
(now petitioner) had been unable to prove that before 1950, the land had
been partitioned and the appellant was not in possession of more land than
his share in the shamlat land. The revision petition against the order of the
Collector (respondent No.4) filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the
Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak (respondent No.2) vide order dated
2.1.2009 (Annexure-P.5). Aggrieved against the same the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the impugned orders dated
7.11.2007 (Annexure-P.3), 23.7.2008 (Annexure-P.4) and 2.1.2009 (Annexure-P.5) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sonepat
(respondent No.4), the Collector, Sonepat (respondent No.3) and the
Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak (respondent No.2) respectively.
(3.)LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order evicting the petitioner from the land measuring 5 Kanals 12 Marlas has been
passed in a summary manner and without considering the question of title
that had been raised by the petitioner. It is submitted that in terms of the
proviso to Section 7(1) of the Act once a question of title is raised, the same
is liable to be determined by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade in accordance
with the provisions of the Act. The same having not been considered, the
impugned orders, it is submitted, are vitiated and are liable to be set aside
and quashed.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.