Partly allowed

Shanti Devi & Ors. v. Harayana State & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 May 2012CWP/8863/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions challenged orders excluding petitioners from cultivating land. The court allowed petitions partially, set aside the Commissioner's order, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication considering jamabandies prior to 26.01.1950. Stay granted on Collector's order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; matter remanded to Commissioner for fresh adjudication considering jamabandies prior to 26.01.1950; stay granted.

Shanti Devi & Ors. Vs Harayana State & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.8863 of 2010 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

(1) Civil Writ Petition No.8863 of 2010 Date of Order: 18.05.2012

¶4

Shanti Devi widow of Gugan and others ...Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana and others ..Respondents

¶7

(2) Civil Writ Petition No.13014 of 2010

¶8

Mukhtiara ....Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Haryana and others ...Respondents

¶11

(3) Civil Writ Petition No.15445 of 2010

¶12

Mangu ...Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State of Haryana and others

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

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

¶17

Present: Mr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶18

Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for respondents no.1 to 3

¶19

Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for respondent no.4.

¶20

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)

¶21

By way of this order, we shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.8863, 13014 and 15445 of 2010, as they involve adjudication of

¶22

-2-

¶23

Civil Writ Petition No.8863 of 2010

¶24

similar questions of fact and law. Facts necessary for adjudication are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.8863 of 2010.

¶25

The dispute in these writ petitions is whether the land is excluded from “Shamilat Deh” by virtue of the petitioners and or their predecessors, being in cultivating possession thereof prior to 26.01.1950 as envisaged by Section 2(g)(viii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act').

¶26

Counsel for the petitioners refers to jamabandies Exhibits R-13 and R-14, in support of his plea that the land in dispute was in cultivating possession of the petitioners or their predecessors prior to 26.01.1950. It is also contended that while reversing the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Guhla, neither the Collector nor the Commissioner have considered much less recorded an opinion with respect to these jamabandies.

¶27

Counsel for the Gram Panchayat is not in a position to support the impugned orders but states that instead of remitting the case to the Collector, it may be remanded to the Commissioner, so as to examine the record and to pass a fresh order with respect to the pleas raised by the petitioner and the Gram Panchayat.

¶28

We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and in view of statement made by counsel for the Gram Panchayat, allow the writ petitions, in part, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and remit the matter for adjudication afresh, after taking into consideration all relevant jamabandies, particularly jamabandies prior to 26.01.1950.

¶29

Civil Writ Petition No.8863 of 2010

¶30

-3-

¶31

Parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, on 05.07.2012. The Commissioner shall decide the matter within three months.

¶32

During pendency of the appeal, the order passed by the Collector, shall remain stayed.

¶33

(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE

¶34

May 18, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) nt JUDGE

Shanti Devi & Ors. v. Harayana State & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti Devi & Ors. v. Harayana State & 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

Nirmla Devi Vs State of Punjab and Another

Ajit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Kansi Ram Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Joginder Singh & Ors. Vs Director Rural & Development Panchayats & Ors.

Harmesh Lal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Parveen Sharma Vs State of Punjab & Ors.