Dismissed

Kalawati Devi @ Kala Devi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Feb 2009CWP/9467/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging eviction orders against petitioners from common village land. The court held that factual disputes regarding possession were uncontroverted and unsuitable for writ jurisdiction, leaving the grievous remedy to the state claimant's civil suit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking quashing of orders dated 17.10.2006 and 21.5.2007 was dismissed.

Kalawati Devi @ Kala Devi and Ors. Vs State of… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.9467 of 2007 (O&M) : 1 :

¶2

I N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 13, 2009

¶4

Smt.Kalawati Devi @ Kala Devi & others

¶5

.....Petitioners

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Haryana & others

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶10

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

PRESENT: Mr.Gurnam Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶14

Mr.Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶15

Mr.Ashwani Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶16

¶17

RANJIT SINGH, J.

¶18

The petitioners have been ordered to be ejected from the

¶19

land in dispute and they have filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned orders dated 17.10.2006, Annexure P-9, and

¶20

21.5.2007, Annexure P-11. As per the petitioners, 300 acres of land

¶21

Civil Writ Petition No.9467 of 2007 (O&M) : 2 :

¶22

in village Pilli Madauri was kept reserved for use of common purposes. This area was taken by imposing pro-rata cut on the holdings of the proprietors. 43 kanals 6 marlas land was given to one Patt Ram by the proprietors, who is father-in-law of petitioner No.1. Patt Ram continued to pay Batai to the proprietors till 1964-65. Thereafter, it is claimed that the proprietors of the village gave this land for the agricultural purpose. It is accordingly pleaded that Gram Panchayat has no right and title over the land, even if the petitioners have remained in unauthorised possession thereof.

¶23

In view of the amendment made by adding sub-clause 6 of Section 2(g) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, the mutation of the land was sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat. This amendment was challenged and ultimately this court had struck down the same in the case of Jai Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2003(3) RCR (Civil) 578 . During this time, Gram Panchayat filed an application for ejectment of the petitioners under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Land Recovery) Act, 1972. The Collector accordingly ordered eviction of the petitioners, which was up-held in the appeal by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar.

¶24

The petitioners have relied upon some of the writ petitions which came to the filed in the year 1993-94, which stand admitted. Puran Singh son of Patt Ram also filed a writ petition No.11966 of 1993. Subsequently, Gram Panchayat filed a petition for ejectment of Puran son of Patt Ram. It is also noticed that Gram Panchayat had subsequently auctioned this land on 2.5.2007, which was challenged by the petitioners by filing a writ petition. The same, however, was

¶25

Civil Writ Petition No.9467 of 2007 (O&M) : 3 :

¶26

disposed of with direction to the authorities to decide the stay application. The Appellate Authority, however, decided the appeal upholding the ejectment order. The petitioners are, thus, before this court through the present writ petition.

¶27

The Collector, after going through the record, came to find that petitioners are in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land and accordingly ordered their eviction. Even a compensation to the tune of Rs.5,56,600/- was also ordered. Commissioner, Hisar has further upheld the order of eviction by returning a finding that the land in dispute is not a part of Shamlat Deh. In fact, the petitioners had claimed themselves in adverse possession since Rabi, 1965, but were found to be in unauthorised occupation without any lease or tenancy agreement in their favour.

¶28

Concededly, the petitioners are not the proprietors of the village and are cultivating the land in an unauthorised capacity. The Gram Panchayat was found to have taken possession of the land in March, 2007 and had leased out the land to one Chhotu Ram son of Matu Ram. The land had subsequently been auctioned in an open auction to Shri Momu son of Chuni Lal on 2.5.2007. The Commissioner, however, did not find the order imposing the penalty to be justified as the provisions of Section 7(2) and 3 of the Punjab Public Premises Act for issuing notice to the petitioners before arriving at assessment had not been issued. Accordingly, the impugned order of ejectment was up-held, but the penalty was setaside. Collector was directed to decide the same afresh by issuing notice to the petitioners.

¶29

Mr.Gurnam Singh could not say anything to impugn this

¶30

Civil Writ Petition No.9467 of 2007 (O&M) : 4 :

¶31

finding of fact as concurrently recorded by Collector as well as by the Commissioner. The counsel simply repeated his submission to say that the petitioners are still in possession. He could not point out to any document or material on record to show either their possession or to rebut the finding that Gram Panchayat has already taken the possession of the land and had thereafter leased it in an open auction. It would not be appropriate for this court to resolve the disputed question of facts, while exercising writ jurisdiction. Otherwise, there is no infirmity in the impugned order which would call for interference.

¶32

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶33

February 13, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE

Kalawati Devi @ Kala Devi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalawati Devi @ Kala Devi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Singh Vs State of Hry. & Ors.

Harkarnail Singh & Ors. Vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab Chd

Chander Khan & Ors. Vs the Commr.Gurgaon Divn. & Ors.

Param Prit Singhgill Vs Pb.St.

Om Parkash Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gurdev Singh Vs F C and Ors.