Dismissed

Rameshwar & Ors. v. Asst. Collector & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 May 2011CWP/12987/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A constitutional writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The High Court dismissed the petition as petitioners, claiming possession since 1950, did not meet the twelve-year possession requirement under Section 4(3)(ii) prior to the Act's commencement.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rameshwar & Ors. Vs Asst. Collector & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

C.W.P. No.12987 of 1992

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No.12987 of 1992 Date of Decision : 19.05.2011

Rameshwar and others

…Petitioners

Versus

The Assistant Collector and others

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

¶11

-.-

¶12

Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Ms. Shalini Attri, D.A.G., Haryana.

¶14

¶15

AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL)

¶16

By this petition the petitioners have challenged the dismissal of their application filed under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable to Haryana) (for brevity ‘the Act’) vide impugned judgment dated 30.06.1992.

¶17

The case set up by the petitioners was that they were in possession of the land in dispute since the year 1950 and hence were entitled to a decree protecting them from ejectment. The Court

¶18

C.W.P. No.12987 of 1992

¶19

-2-

¶20

below decided the case on merits. Apart from the merits Section 4(3) (ii) of the Act is to the following effect:-

¶21

“ 4(3). Vesting of rights in Panchayat and non-proprietors:- Nothing contained in caluse(a) of sub-section (1) and in subsection (2) shall affect or shall be deemed ever to have affected the:-

¶22

(i) existing rights, title or interests of persons, who though not entered as occupancy tenants in the revenue records are accorded a similar status by custom or otherwise, such as Dholidars, Bhondedars, Butimars, Basikhupahus, Saunjidars, Muqarrirdars;

¶23

(ii) rights of persons who were in cultivating possession of shamilat deh on the date of the commencement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 or the Pepsu Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1954, and were in such cultivating possession for more than twelve years on such commencement without payment of rent or by payment of charges not exceeding the land revenue and cesses payable thereon;

¶24

(iii) rights of a mortgagee to whom such land is mortgaged with possession before the 26^th January, 1950.”

¶25

C.W.P. No.12987 of 1992 -3-

¶26

Under Section 4(3)(ii) (supra) protection can be granted only to that person who are in possession of land for more than 12 years prior to the commencement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 or the Pepsu Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1954 (as the case may be).

¶27

Thus the averment that the petitioners have been in possession since the year 1950 would in any case even if accepted would not bring them within the ambit of the protected person under the Act.

¶28

In the circumstances, this petition is dismissed.

¶29

( AJAY

¶30

TEWARI ) May 19, 2011 JUDGE ashish

Rameshwar & Ors. v. Asst. Collector & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rameshwar & Ors. v. Asst. Collector & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamaljeet Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Harminder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Uma Rani Vs State of Haryana

Chajju Ram & Ors. Vs Assistant Collecter & Ors.

Vinod Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Preetpal Singh Vs State of Punjab