Dismissed

Ishwar Chand v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 May 2012CWP/9346/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking quashing of an eviction order passed under the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961, the Court dismissed the petition citing unexplained delay and laches. It held that land created during consolidation is Shamilat Deh, and disputes regarding its nature must be adjudicated by the Collector under Section 13-A of the Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to file a petition under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

Ishwar Chand Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.9346 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.9346 of 2012 Date of Decision:17.05.2012

¶5

Ishwar Chand ..... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and others

¶8

..... Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

Present : Mr.Ramesh Goyat, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The petitioner prays for quashing of order dated 15.04.2005, passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Kaithal, directing the petitioner's eviction, pursuant to an application filed by the Gram Panchayat of village Nauch, Tehsil and District Kaithal, under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as the '1961 Act').

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the land, in dispute, is “ Jumla Mushtarka Malkan / Mushtarka Malkan” and as it has not been reserved for common purposes during consolidation, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat and as a consequence, the order of eviction is a nullity. It is further contended that as execution proceedings have been initiated to execute an order that is a nullity, the impugned order

¶15

CWP No.9346 of 2012

¶16

-2-

¶17

may be set aside and the petitioner's possession may be protected.

¶18

We have heard counsel for the petitioner and as challenge to order dated 15.04.2005 suffers from unexplained delay and laches, do not deem it appropriate, in the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, to grant any relief to the petitioner. Even otherwise, the land, in dispute, is recorded as “ Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” , i.e., land created during consolidation, by applying a pro-rata cut on the holdings of the proprietors. As per Rule 16(ii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, such land vests in proprietors but its management and control vests with the Gram Panchayat. Section 2(g)(6) of the 1961 Act, as added by the State of Haryana, provides that this land shall be “ Shamilat Deh” . If a land owner raises a plea that the land was not reserved for any common purpose or the pro-rata cut was applied, in excess, he would be required to approach the Collector, exercising power under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, for adjudication of these pleas.

¶19

In this view of the matter, we dismiss the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a petition under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

¶20

[ RAJIVE BHALLA ] JUDGE

¶21

17.05.2012 shamsher

¶22

[ RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ] JUDGE

¶23

CWP No.9346 of 2012 -3-

Ishwar Chand v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwar Chand v. State of Haryana 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

Jagir Singh Vs the Collector Hissar and Other

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

Lovely Kumar Vs State of Pb.

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.