Allowed

Ishwar Singh and Ors. v. Commissioner Rohtak Division and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Feb 2012CWP/6582/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court intervened to quash impugned orders vesting disputed land in the Gram Panchayat. The Court held that for 'Shamilat Thola' land, specific usage for common village purposes must be established before vesting, noting that the lower authorities failed to record this crucial finding.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 28.08.2008 and 19.02.2010 set aside; matter remanded to Collector, Sonepat, to decide afresh in accordance with law.

Ishwar Singh and Ors. Vs Commissioner Rohtak… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.6582 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No.6582 of 2010 Date of Order: 17.02.2012

¶5

Ishwar Singh and others

¶6

..Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtk and others ..Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

Present:Mr. R.S.Malik, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, Advocate for respondent no.4-Gram Panchayat.

¶12

Mr. K.S.Malik, Advocate for respondent no.5.

¶13

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)

¶14

The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing orders dated 28.08.2008 (Annexure P-4) and 19.02.2010 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Collector, Sonepat and the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, respectively.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioners submits that as admittedly the land in dispute is part of a Gair Mumkin Thola, it can only vest in the Gram Panchayat, if it is used as per the revenue record for common purposes of the village or a part thereof. It is argued that as neither the Collector nor the Commissioner have recorded any such finding, the impugned orders are a nullity. It is also argued that Section 2(g)

¶16

Civil Writ Petition No.6582 of 2010 -2-

¶17

(4)(a) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act'), does not apply to a Shamilat Thola as Section 2(g)(v) of the Act provides that such land only vests in the Gram Panchayat, if, as per the revenue record, it is not being used for common purposes.

¶18

Counsel for the private respondent and counsel for the Gram Panchayat submit that as the land in dispute is vacant land in Abadi Deh it vests in the Gram Panchayat under Section 2(g)(4)(a) and whether it is a Gair Mumkin Thola or any other variety of land, it does not belong to the petitioner and vests in the Gram Panchayat.

¶19

We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders.

¶20

Section 2(g)(1) of the Act, provides that land situated in Abadi or Gorah Deh, is excluded from “Shamilat Deh”. Section 2(g) (4)(a), however, provides that vacant land within Abadi or Gorah Deh, and not owned by anyone, vests in a Gram Panchayat. Sections 2(g) (5) and 2(g)(v) of the Act, do not draw any distinction, between land within or without Abadi Deh and postulate that land of “Shamilat Thola” not used as per the revenue record for common purposes of the village or a part thereof shall not vest in a Gram Panchayat. The land in dispute is "Shamilat Thola" and, therefore, can only vest in the Gram Panchayat if it is used, as per the revenue record for common purposes of the village or a part thereof. A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that neither the Collector nor the Commissioner have recorded any finding whether the land, which is admittedly a "Shamilat Thola", and situated within Abadi Deh, was

¶21

-3-

¶22

Civil Writ Petition No.6582 of 2010

¶23

used as per the revenue record for common purposes of the village or a part thereof.

¶24

In this view of the matter, we allow the writ petition, set aside the orders dated 28.08.2008 (Annexure P-4) and 19.02.2010 (Annexure P-6) and remit the matter to the Collector, Sonepat, to decide the matter afresh and in accordance with law.

¶25

Parties are directed to appear before the Collector,

¶26

Sonepat, on 19.04.2012.

¶27

(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE

¶28

February 17, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) nt JUDGE

Ishwar Singh and Ors. v. Commissioner Rohtak Division and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwar Singh and Ors. v. Commissioner Rohtak Division 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

Ranjodh Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Chanchal Vs Sudhir Kumar

Ramandeep Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Tota Singh Vs Addl.Director C/H Pb.Etc.

Gram Panchayat Vs Additional Director etc.

Amanpreet Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.