Allowed

Mahinder Singh and Anr. v. Collector Yamuna Nagar and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Jul 2013CWP/10577/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition, vacated the interim stay, and directed the Collector to dispose of the title suit within six months. Parties were directed to maintain status quo pending the suit decision.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; status quo maintained; Collector directed to dispose of title suit within 6 months; three opportunities for evidence granted to parties.

Mahinder Singh and Anr. Vs Col… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CM No. 9141 of 2013 in/and CWP No. 10577 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CM No. 9141 of 2013 in/and CWP No. 10577 of 2013 (O & M) Date of decision : 8.7.2013

¶6

Mahinder Singh and another ........Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Collector, Yamuna Nagar and another ....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia

¶10

Present:Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate, for the respondent-applicant

¶11

Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)

¶12

CM No. 9141 of 2013

¶13

This application has been filed for vacation of interim stay granted by this Court on 16.5.2013 staying dispossession of the petitioners from the land in dispute till further orders.

¶14

With consent of counsel for the parties, we pre-pone the date in the main case from 1.8.2013 to today itself and the writ petition is taken up on board for disposal.

¶15

CWP No. 10577 of 2013 :

¶16

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash an order dated 9.5.2013 (P-6) passed by the respondent-Collector vide which stay application filed by the petitioners in a title suit filed under Section 13A of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961, as

¶17

Kumar Ashwani 2013.07.19 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CM No. 9141 of 2013 in/and CWP No. 10577 of 2013

¶19

-2-

¶20

applicable to Haryana (in short 'the Act'), was dismissed. Further prayer of the petitioners is to restrain the respondent-Gram Panchayat from dispossessing of the petitioners from the land in dispute.

¶21

Heard counsel for the parties.

¶22

The dispute is with regard to 3 kanals of land, which as per revenue record, shown in the ownership of shamilat deh Baimujim Hissa Zail . Copy of jamabandi is placed on record as Annexure P-1. In the Possession Column, father of the petitioners is shown as Gair Marusi Billa Lagan Ba-Waja Malak .

¶23

As per facts on record, the Gram Panchayat initiated proceedings under Section 24 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 against the petitioners for their ejectment from the land in dispute. The Gram Panchayat's application was allowed. The petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the competent authority on 11.5.2012. The petitioners then came to this Court by filing CWP No. 10091 of 2012, which was disposed of by this Court on 18.3.2013 by passing the following order :-

¶24

“After addressing arguments for some time, counsel for the petitioner states that as the land, in dispute, is recorded as Shamilat Patti and is not used, as per revenue records, for any common purpose, a question of title, therefore, arises and as such, the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act'), as applicable to the State of Haryana.

¶25

The aforesaid fact has been vehemently disputed by

¶26

Kumar Ashwani 2013.07.19 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CM No. 9141 of 2013 in/and CWP No. 10577 of 2013

¶28

-3-

¶29

counsel for the Gram Panchayat by stating that from the year 1954, the land is recorded as 'gair-mumkin johari' and, only after the petitioner came into possession, was the land recorded as banjar jadid and thereafter banjar qadim.

¶30

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 13-A of the 1961 Act. The petitioner will be at liberty to file an application for stay before the Collector.

¶31

Parties shall maintain status quo with respect to possession for a period of one week. ”

¶32

The petitioners were directed to withdraw above writ petition with liberty to file a title suit before the competent authority. For a week, parties were ordered to maintain status quo.

¶33

Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application under Section 13A of the Act, claiming title of the land in dispute. During hearing of that application, the petitioners also filed another application seeking interim injunction against the Gram Panchayat not to dispossess them from the land in dispute during pendency of the suit. That application was declined by the Collector, Yamuna Nagar on 9.5.2013. Relevant portion of the order reads thus :-

¶34

“I have heard both the parties carefully and also perused the record carefully available on the file. On the land in dispute the possession of the petitioners prima-facie is not proved. The petitioners themselves are saying the owners of the land in dispute whereas, the revenue record produced by them on the file, they have been shown therein as Gair Maurusi. Therefore, balance of convenience is not lies in favour of the

¶35

Kumar Ashwani 2013.07.19 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CM No. 9141 of 2013 in/and CWP No. 10577 of 2013

¶37

-4-

¶38

petitioners. Due to this reason the application of the petitioners for grant of injunction order is not justified to be accepted. Therefore, the prayer made by them for grant of injunction order is declined. But it is made clear here that the order passed by me will have no adverse effect on the merits of the case and the final decision of the case. The case be adjourned for 23.5.2013 for filing written statement.”

¶39

In first portion of the order, it was noted that the petitioners prima facie have failed to show that they were in possession of the property in dispute. In the next part of the order, it is observed that the petitioners have been shown as Gair Maurusi in possession over the property in dispute. Both the findings run contrary to each other. Otherwise also, we have seen the revenue record. In the jamabandi for the year 2005-06 in the Possession Column, father of the petitioners is shown as Gair Maurusi. In Column No. 9, it is mentioned that he was sitting in this land, without payment of any rent, being owner of the land in dispute.

¶40

Be that as it may. The question of title is going to be decided by the competent authority. When writ petition filed by the petitioners was ordered to be withdrawn, the parties were directed to maintain status quo. When the petitioners came to this Court against the order under challenge on 16.5.2013, their dispossession was ordered to be stayed till further orders.

¶41

Taking note of the facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that it will not harm anybody if parties are directed to maintain status quo on the spot as it exist today till decision of the suit by the competent officer.

¶42

Kumar Ashwani 2013.07.19 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

-5-

¶44

CM No. 9141 of 2013 in/and CWP No. 10577 of 2013

¶45

We allow this writ petition in the above mentioned terms and direct the Collector, Yamuna Nagar to dispose of the title suit within 6 months from today. Both the parties be provided 3 opportunities each to lead their evidence.

¶46

It is made clear that the order of status quo will not confer any right upon the petitioners to raise any construction or incumber the property in dispute in any manner.

¶47

Anything said in this order shall have no effect on the decision of the application under Section 13A of the Act, on merits.

¶48

(Jasbir Singh) Judge

¶49

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Judge

¶50

8.7.2013 Ashwani

¶51

Kumar Ashwani 2013.07.19 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mahinder Singh and Anr. v. Collector Yamuna Nagar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahinder Singh and Anr. v. Collector Yamuna Nagar and Anr.

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

Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ajmer Singh etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Ramesh Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Harpal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Umrao Singh and Ors. Vs the Collector and Anr.

Jagraj Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.