Dismissed

Ramjani v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Mar 2011CWP/4858/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging order directing petitioner's ejectment by Gram Panchayat. Court held impeachment of order; land ownership must be adjudicated by Collector under Section 7 or suit/suit/tribunal under Section 13-A/Wakf Act before eviction. Petition dismissed, eviction stayed for two months to enable appropr history. No order as to cost. Petition dismissed with liberty to approach appropria

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; eviction order stayed for two months; liberty to approach Collector under Section 7, file suit under Section 13-A, or approach Wakf Tribunal.

Ramjani Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No. 4858 of 1988 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No. 4858 of 1988 Date of Decision: 22.3.2011

Ramjani

..Petitioner

Versus

Gram Panchayat, Sunehra through its Sarpanch and others

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶10

Present:-Mr. Amit Jain , Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Paramjit Batta, Additional Advocate General Haryana for the respondents

¶12

RAJIVE BHALLA, J. ( ORAL)

¶13

The petitioner impugns orders dated 9.2.1988 passed by the District Collector, Gurgaon, accepting the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat, setting aside the order dated 21.1.1987 passed by the Assistant Collector I Grade, Ferozepur Zhirka, Gurgaon and as a consequence, directing the ejectment of the petitioner.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that in a notification issued by the Central Government, the land in dispute is described as a Wakf. The Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction to claim ownership or file a petition for ejectment under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The Collector was required to decide this dispute in accordance with Section 7 (1) of the Act or direct parties to file a suit, as provided by Section 13-A of the Act. In absence of any adjudication on the question of title, the impugned order should be set aside.

¶15

Civil Writ Petition No. 4858 of 1988 2

¶16

Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Gram Panchayat.

¶17

Counsel for the State of Haryana, on the other hand, submits that as the notification, declaring the property in dispute as a wakf, does not bind the Gram Panchayat, the impugned order has been rightly passed and deserves to be affirmed.

¶18

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The land is described in the ownership column of jamabandis, as “Abadi Deh”. The fact that the Central Government may have issued a notification under the Wakf Act, 1954 would not divest the Gram Panchayat of its right to sue till such time as an appropriate Court or Forum decides the question of ownership. The petitioner, who is recorded as a Bhondidar, for the purpose of rendering services to “Takia”, should have approached the Collector under Section 7 of the Act or file a suit under Section 13-A of the Act or the Wakf Tribunal, for deciding the question whether the land vests or does not so vest in the Gram Panchayat.

¶19

In view of what has been stated above, while affirming the order passed by the District Collector, Gurgaon, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Collector under Section 7 of the Act or file a suit under Section 13-A of the Act or approach the Wakf Tribunal under the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995. The order of eviction shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two months so as to enable the petitioner to file an appropriate petition under Section 13-A of the Act. No order as to costs.

¶20

( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE

¶21

22.3.2011 VK

¶22

Civil Writ Petition No. 4858 of 1988 3

Ramjani v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramjani v. State of Haryana & 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

Sumiti Sagar Vs Balbir Singh Jain & Ors.

Gurdev Singh Vs Financial Commissioner, Hry. & Ors.

Muddu Ram etc. Vs Addl.Director C/H Hy.Etc.

Hukam Singh Vs District Town Pallner Gurgaon

(O&M) Darshan Ram Vs Bachna

Amrik Singh Vs Gurmit Singh etc.