Dismissed

Mithan Singh and Ors. v. Financial Commissioner Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Feb 2011CWP/1145/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of orders ejecting petitioners from vacant village common land. Upholding findings that the land fell under shamlat deh and was unusable for a proposed school due to unauthorized possession, the court held remedies were available via appeal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners' writ petition for quashing the impugned orders of ejectment was dismissed.

Mithan Singh and Ors. Vs Financial Commissioner… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶2

CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.1145 of 2010

¶4

DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 7, 2011

¶5

MITHAN SINGH & ANR.

¶6

....... PETITIONER(S)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA & ORS.

¶9

.... RESPONDENT(S)

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶11

PRESENT: Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. SS Nara, Sr.DAG, Haryana. Mr. Diwan Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶12

AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

¶13

1 This Civil Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 18.4.2006 (Annexure P-2), passed by Collector, Panchkula, order dated 14.8.2007 (Annexure P- 3), passed by the appellate court viz. Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, and order dated 15.7.2008 (Annexure P-4), passed by the revisional forum viz. Financial Commissioner, Haryana. The application filed by the petitioners under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') has been dismissed and the order has been upheld. The basis of passing the impugned orders is that an application under Section 7 of the Act was filed against the petitioners.

¶14

Civil Writ Petition No.1145 of 2010

¶15

¶16

The appropriate authority under the Act, vide order dated 15.12.1993 (Annexure P-5) directed the ejectment of the petitioners. Appeal filed by the petitioners against the said order was also dismissed.

¶17

2 Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the order passed under Section 7 of the Act was without any hearing to the petitioners.

¶18

3 On a query of the court, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the land is not bounded by any boundary wall. However, it has been contended that the land is being used by the petitioners for peripheral purposes for tethering cattle, using the same as Bara, etc.

¶19

Order (Annexure P-5) is based on spot inspection and in consideration of site plan. The petitioners were found to be in illegal possession of the land owned by the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners, before that authority, could not produce any proof regarding old possession over the land or ownership of the land. This fact also finds mention in the operative part of order (Annexure P-5). The order further mentions that as per resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat on 12.8.1993, the Gram Panchayat wanted to use the land for construction of a school. The petitioners, however, came into possession by unauthorised means and, therefore, the application under Section 7 of the Act was filed, which was allowed. Rather, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner notices that the land was being used for common purposes and there was a proposal to construct a school, however, on account of unauthorised possession of the petitioners, the school had to be constructed on the land meant for “Hadda Rori”.

¶20

Civil Writ Petition No.1145 of 2010

¶21

¶22

5 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted insomuch as the remedy available to the petitioners was to file an appeal against order of ejectment passed under Section 7 of the Act. The appeal against the order had been dismissed vide order dated 2.7.1996 and, therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted.

¶23

6 Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case; findings of fact recorded to the effect that the petitioners could not produce any evidence to show their title; the fact that the land was lying vacant within the abadi deh and, therefore, was covered under Section 2 (g)(4-a) of the Act and was, thus, included in shamlat deh; the land had been used for common purposes and the land is not bounded by any wall, no ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is made out.

¶24

7 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. February 7, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE

¶25

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶26

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Mithan Singh and Ors. v. Financial Commissioner Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithan Singh and Ors. v. Financial Commissioner Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dwarka Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gulzar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sukhwinder Pal Vs Superintending Canal Officer & Ors.

Zila Parishad Vs State of Pb. & Ors.

Ravi Pal Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab and Haryana High Court Vs Central Information Commission, and Anr.