Allowed

Krishna Devi & Ors. v. Director Rural Dev.& Panchayat Pb.& Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Jul 2013CWP/14816/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition, quashing orders passed by the Director and Collector under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act regarding the ejectment of petitioners. The Court held that respondents failed to examine documents or summon Gram Panchayat records to verify allotment claims before rejecting the petitioners' case.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; orders of Director dated 2.12.2011 and Collector dated 7.9.2010 set aside; matter remitted to Collector for fresh decision with opportunity to summon records.

Krishna Devi & Ors. Vs Director… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 14816 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

Date of Decision: 24.7.2013

¶4

Krishna Devi and Others

¶5

... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab and Others

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

Mr. K.K.Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶12

Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶13

Jasbir Singh, Judge (Oral)

¶14

Civil Misc.No. 10470 of 2013

¶15

Civil Misc. Application is allowed.

¶16

Replication to the written statement, filed on behalf of respondent No.4, is taken on record.

¶17

Civil Writ Petition No. 14816 of 2012

¶18

It is case of the petitioners that they are members of weaker

¶19

section of the Society and their ejectment from the land, which was allotted to them way back in the year 1976 and 1995, has wrongly been ordered.

¶20

Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2013.08.05 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶21

Civil Writ Petition No. 14816 of 2012 (O&M)

¶22

¶23

It is coming out from the record that the Gram Panchayatrespondent No.4 filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for ejectment of the petitioners from the land falling in khasra No. 30 Min (1-8) measuring 1 kanal 18 marlas. It was stated that unauthorizedly the petitioners have raised construction over that land, which otherwise was kept reserved for a pond. That ejectment application was filed on 27.8.2010. After notice, the petitioners appeared before the Collector, Gurdaspur and placed on record photocopies of many documents to show that as a matter of fact the Gram Panchayat had allotted plots measuring 4 marlas each, to some of the petitioners/their predecessors in interest being members of weaker section of the society. It was further stated that from some of the allottees, some petitioners purchased the property in dispute against price.

¶24

The Collector, when passing order dated 7.9.2010 within 12 days from the date of filing of that application, rejected the documents placed on record by the petitioners stating that they have produced only photocopies of the resolutions. Opportunity to prove those documents, by summoning the Gram Panchayat's record was not given to the petitioners. Everything has been done in a hasty manner. The valuable claim of the petitioners regarding allotment of plots to members of weaker section of the society and purchase of those plots by some of the petitioners was not looked into. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners were given any opportunity to summon the

¶25

Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2013.08.05 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶26

Civil Writ Petition No. 14816 of 2012 (O&M)

¶27

¶28

Secretary/Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, to prove the documents in their favour. It was only stated that the Gram Panchayat denied passing of any resolution which was put on record by the petitioners. In the same manner, without looking into documents on record, the Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners.

¶29

The quasi-judicial authorities, when passing orders affecting valuable rights of the litigants, are supposed to look into photocopies of the documents placed on record by the petitioners and to give ample opportunity to the interested parties to prove those documents by summoning the record etc. to summon whether the plea taken was correct. It was not done in this case.

¶30

Under the circumstances, we allow this writ petition and set aside orders passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab at Chandigarh dated 2.12.2011 (Annexure P6) and the Collector, Gurdaspur dated 7.9.2010 (Annexure P4). The matter is remitted to the Collector, Gurdaspur (now Pathankot) for deciding afresh, as per law. The parties are directed to appear before the Collector on 7.8.2013. The Collector, before passing any order, shall afford effective opportunities to the parties to prove their case, and also summon the relevant record of the Gram Panchayat.

¶31

(Jasbir Singh) Judge

¶32

(G.S.Sandhawalia) Judge

¶33

July 24, 2013

¶34

Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2013.08.05 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Krishna Devi & Ors. v. Director Rural Dev.& Panchayat Pb.& Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Devi & Ors. v. Director Rural Dev.& Panchayat Pb.& 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

Mubarik Masih Vs Soni Masih and Anr.

Ramandeep Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Tej Ram Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harbans Singh Vs Director Rural Development Pb.& Ors.