Dismissed

Dhani Ram v. Commissioner Gurgaon Dn. Gurgaon & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 May 2012CWP/13461/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the rejection of a claim to purchase village common land. The court held that the land was reserved for a school playground and thus could not be sold to the petitioners for residence, despite their construction on the site.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed as the land reserved for a school playground could not be sold to the petitioners for residence.

Dhani Ram Vs Commissioner Gurgaon Dn. Gurgaon & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

[ 1 ]

¶2

CWP No.13461 of 2011 CWP No.13592 of 2011

¶3

::::::

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

(1) CWP No.13461 of 2011 Date of decision:04.05.2012

¶6

Dhani Ram ...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon & others ...Respondents

¶9

(2) CWP No.13592 of 2011 Date of decision:04.05.2012

¶10

Sajjan Singh and another ...Petitioner

¶11

Versus Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon & others ...Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶13

Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶14

Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 and 3.

¶15

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *****

¶16

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

¶17

[ 2 ]

¶18

CWP No.13461 of 2011 CWP No.13592 of 2011

¶19

::::::

¶20

By way of this order, we shall dispose of CWP Nos.13461 and 13592 of 2011, as question of fact and law in both the writ petitions are common. However, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.13461 of 2011.

¶21

The Gram Panchayat (respondent No.2) filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 [for short “1961 Act”] against the petitioner, alleging that he is in unauthorized possession of the shamilat land, which is being used for Gair Mumkin school. Vide order dated 06.01.1998, Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Gurgaon, held that as the petitioner has constructed his house on the land in dispute, it is in the benefit of the Panchayat to sell it to the petitioner at the prevailing market rate, in accordance with rules. It is alleged that respondent No.2 passed a resolution on 24.04.1998 in this regard and referred the matter to the Gram Sabha, who also passed a resolution dated 13.06.1998 agreed for transfer of land in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.2, however, challenged the order of the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, by way of a revision before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, which was allowed on 07.06.2007 and after setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, the case was remanded back for deciding it afresh. The petitioner, in both the petitions, challenged order of the Commissioner dated 07.06.2007 by way of CWP Nos.17030 and 17194 of 2007, which were disposed of on 04.03.2009 with a direction to the

¶22

[ 3 ]

¶23

CWP No.13461 of 2011 CWP No.13592 of 2011

¶24

::::::

¶25

Gram Panchayat and the respondent-State to consider the claim of petitioners in terms of the policy/instructions of the State and in case it is covered by the same, to consider sale of land to them on the terms and conditions, as contained in the policy/instructions.

¶26

The case of the petitioners was considered by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, and was rejected vide his order dated 18.03.2010 (P-7) as the land in dispute is reserved for a school playground and as there is no other land in possession of the Gram Panchayat for giving it to the school. It was also observed that the Gram Panchayat has passed resolution No.2 on 03.07.2009 deciding not to give the land in question to the petitioners as it is reserved for the school playground. The Panchayat then filed an application under Section 7 of the Act before the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, which was allowed on 19.04.2010 (P-8), inter alia, on the ground that it is reserved for school playground and is not covered by any exclusion clause of Section 2(g) of the Act. It was also observed that claim of the petitioners has already been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on 18.03.2010. The petitioners challenged the order of the Collector by way of an appeal before the District Collector, Gurgaon, which was dismissed on 27.07.2010 (P-9) and having lost before the revenue authorities, the present writ petitions have been filed.

¶27

Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the application filed by respondent No.2-Gram Panchayat, under Section 7 of the Act,

¶28

[ 4 ]

¶29

CWP No.13461 of 2011 CWP No.13592 of 2011

¶30

::::::

¶31

was decided by the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade on 06.01.1998 (P-1) which was not challenged by respondent No.2 by way of an appeal to the Collector, rather, in terms of the order Annexure P-1, the Panchayat as well as Gram Sabha had passed their respective resolutions for alienating the land in dispute, but the Commissioner, while passing the order dated 07.06.2007 (P-3) has committed a patent error of law as the order Annexure P-1 passed precisely 8 years and 10 months earlier, has been set aside by-passing the remedy of appeal. He has further submitted that the petitioners have constructed their residential houses in the land in dispute and due to change in the constitution of Panchayat, subsequent resolutions have been passed in order to cause loss to them, otherwise, as per policy, the land in question could have been sold to the petitioners and the Deputy Commissioner has wrongly passed the order Annexure P-7.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2Gram Panchayat has submitted that the petitioners cannot raise the issue of jurisdiction of the Commissioner in passing of order Annexure P-4 as validity of the said order has already been tested and upheld in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners in both the cases, and only a direction was given to the Panchayat and the Government to consider the case of the petitioner for sale of the land in dispute. It is also submitted that the land in dispute is shamilat deh and vests in the Gram Panchayat as it is reserved for common purposes of playground for the

¶33

CWP No.13461 of 2011 CWP No.13592 of 2011

[ 5 ]

::::::

school.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and are satisfied that the petitioners cannot challenge validity of order Annexure P-4, which has been upheld by this Court in the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioners and the land in dispute, admittedly being shamilat deh and reserved for common purposes of playground for the school, cannot be given to the petitioners for any purpose, much-less for residence as their claims have already been considered by the Deputy Commissioner, and rejected vide order Annexure P-7. The petitioner is not claiming any right or title in the land in dispute, except contending that as he has constructed a house, the Gram Panchayat should sell the land to him. The land, having been reserved as a playground, cannot possibly be sold to the petitioner. The earlier resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Sabha are irrelevant, as these have been nullified by a subsequent resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, refusing to sell the land to the petitioner.

¶38

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions, and as such, the same are hereby dismissed.

¶39

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case.

¶40

(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE

¶41

CWP No.13461 of 2011 [ 6 ] CWP No.13592 of 2011

¶42

::::::

¶43

04.05.2012 (RAJIVE BHALLA) vinod* JUDGE

Dhani Ram v. Commissioner Gurgaon Dn. Gurgaon & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhani Ram v. Commissioner Gurgaon Dn. Gurgaon & 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

Joginder Singh Vs Jt. Dev. Commr. etc.

Nek Singh Vs Joint Development

Mohinder Singh Vs Jt. Dev. Commr.

Sajjan Singh & Anr. Vs Commissioner Gurgaon Dn. Gurgaon & Ors.

Sunder and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Amolak Singh Vs Director, Rural Devlp. & Panchayat and Ors.