Dismissed

Hans Raj v. Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ambala and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Feb 2012CWP/8464/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of three writ petitions challenging eviction orders. It held that vacant land in abadi deh vested in the Gram Panchayat as shamilat deh under Section 2(g)4(a) of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961, having come into force before the petitioners constructed shops.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed, upholding the eviction order.

Hans Raj Vs Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ambala… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.8464-1987 CWP No.8817-1987 CWP No.99-1987

¶2

[ 1 ]

¶3

::::::::

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

(1) CWP No.8464-1987 Date of decision:26.03.2012 Hans Raj ...Petitioner Versus The Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Ambala and others ...Respondents

¶6

(2) CWP No.8817-1987 Date of decision:26.03.2012 Om Parkash ...Petitioner Versus The Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Ambala and others ...Respondents

¶7

(3) CWP No.99-1988 Date of decision:26.03.2012 Smt. Sant Kaur ...Petitioner Versus The Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Ambala and others ...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶10

Present: Mr. H.N.Mehtani, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No.8464 of 1987. Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No.8817 of 1987. Mr. M.S.Uppal, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No.99 of 1988.

¶11

CWP No.8464-1987 CWP No.8817-1987 CWP No.99-1987

¶12

[ 2 ]

¶13

::::::::

¶14

Mr. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶15

Mr. D.V.Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. *****

¶16

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

¶17

This order shall dispose of three writ petitions, namely, CWP No.8464 of 1987 titled as Hans Raj Vs. The Assistant Collector 1<sup>st</sup> Grade, Ambala and others' [for short “first petition”], CWP No.8817 of 1987 titled as Om Parkash Vs. The Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Ambala and others' [for short “second petition”] and CWP No.99 of 1988 titled as `Smt. Sant Kaur Vs. The Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Ambala and others' [for short “third petition”] as the common question of law and almost similar facts are involved in all the writ petitions. Moreover, vide order dated 25.11.2011 passed in the third petition, the Registry was directed to list the first and second petitions with it. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP No.8817 of 1987.

¶18

In all the aforesaid cases, the Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 [for short “the Act”], as applicable to Haryana, alleging that the petitioners, herein have, unauthorizedly occupied vacant land in abadi deh belonging to the Panchayat, which was kept reserved for school and hospital. The petitioners lost before all the revenue authorities upto the court of Commissioner and had even filed a Civil Suit challenging the orders of the revenue authorities which was dismissed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that eviction has been wrongly ordered by the Courts below as the land described as abadi deh is not shamilat deh. It is submitted that since shops have been constructed, the land is not vacant which could be claimed by the

¶20

CWP No.8464-1987 CWP No.8817-1987 CWP No.99-1987

[ 3 ]

::::::::

Panchayat.

In reply, counsel for the respondent No.4 has submitted that the land was lying vacant as it was left for the purpose of construction of school and hospital. There was a writing in this regard which is marked as Mark-A and before it was unauthorizedly occupied, it was being used as a resting place for cattle of the village.

¶25

Counsel for the respondent No.4 has also submitted that the construction has been raised only 2 years back after coming into force of Section 2(g) 4(a) of the Act and all the vacant lands, situated within the abadi deh or gorah deh , which were not owned by any person, had already vested in the Panchayat.

¶26

We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

¶27

The petitioners had examined Resham Singh, Sadhu Singh and Mehar Singh as witnesses. It is admitted by Resham Singh that the petitioners had built shops only 2 years' back, meaning thereby that the shops were constructed somewhere in the year 1983 and earlier thereto land was lying vacant. The question, thus, that arises is whether the land in dispute has vested in the Gram Panchayat in terms of Section 2(g) 4(a) of the Act.

¶28

In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to Section 2(g) 4(a) of the Act, which reads as under:

¶29

Section 2(g)4(a) was inserted by Section 2 of the Haryana Act No.23 of 1973 w.e.f. 23.06.1973 but was omitted by Haryana Act No.2 of 1981 and was reinserted by Haryana Act No.15 of 1983 w.e.f. 12.02.1981. Hence, vacant land in abadi deh or gorah deh, as on 12.02.1981, is deemed to have vested in the Panchayat being shamilat deh.

¶30

CWP No.8464-1987 CWP No.8817-1987 CWP No.99-1987

¶31

[ 4 ]

¶32

::::::::

¶33

Since the petitioners in all the cases could not prove that they had constructed their shops on the land in question prior to coming Section 2(g) 4(a) of the Act into force, therefore, it is apparent that when the said provision came into force, the land in dispute was lying vacant and had vested in shamilat deh, automatically, in terms of Section 2(g) 4(a) of the Act.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the present writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed.

¶35

No costs.

¶36

A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases.

¶37

(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE

¶38

26.03.2012 (RAJIVE BHALLA) vinod* JUDGE

Hans Raj v. Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ambala and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hans Raj v. Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ambala 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

Trishla Devi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurcharan Singh and Others Vs Housing Commissioner Punjab

Shamsher Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Bhagwat Parshad and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gram Panchayat Mattar Hithar, Thru Jagir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Dalmira and Ors. Vs Commissioner Ambala Division Ambala and Ors.