Allowed

Gram Panchayat Pangaltu v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Feb 2013CWP/18122/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a writ petition quashing a District Collector's order. The court held that the Collector erred in interpreting Section 2(g)(vi) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as excluding land used as a house before the 1981 amendment, when it should refer to non-existence before the 1961 enactment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the District Collector setting aside the earlier order declaring ownership and excluding the land from Shamilat Deh is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.

Gram Panchayat Pangaltu Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No.18122 of 1995

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.18122 of 1995 DATE OF DECISION : 19.02.2013

¶6

Gram Panchayat Pangaltu

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Haryana and others

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

¶12

Present : Mr. H.N.Mehtani, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Dhruv Dayal, D.A.G., Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶14

Mr. R.C.Setia, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶15

RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL)

¶16

The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 28.03.1995, passed by the District Collector, Faridabad.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the land, in dispute, is recorded, in the revenue record, as Gram Panchayat Deh and is, therefore, owned by the Gram Panchayat. The finding recorded by the District Collector that as respondent No.4 built his house 22 to 25 years ago, the land, in dispute, is excluded from Shamilat Deh , under Section 2 (g)(vi) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, (as applicable to the State of Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as the '1961 Act'), is factually and legally incorrect. It is argued that respondent No.4 was required to adduce evidence that the house was constructed before enactment of the 1961 Act. The petitioner has not produced any such

¶18

CWP No.18122 of 1995

¶19

-2-

¶20

evidence. It is prayed that as the impugned order reveals an illegal exercise of jurisdiction, the writ petition may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside.

¶21

Counsel for respondent No.4 submits that though the District Collector, Faridabad, has recorded a finding that the appellant built his house 20 to 25 years before inclusion of Section 2(g)(vi) of the 1961 Act, in the year 1981 but actually a kacha house was already in existence before 26.01.1950. The kacha house was re-built 20 to 25 years before, enactment of Section 2(g)(vi) of the 1961 Act in 1981. The house is, therefore, excluded from Shamilat Deh .

¶22

We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and have no hesitation in holding that the District Collector, Faridabad, has committed an error of jurisdiction, while allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.4 and declaring him owner of the land, in dispute.

¶23

Admittedly, the land, in dispute, is situated outside abadi deh and is the site of a house constructed by respondent No.4. The land, in dispute, is admittedly recorded as ownership of the Gram Panchayat. Section 2(g)(vi) of the 1961 Act, introduced by way of an amendment in 1981, provides that land outside abadi deh shall not be included in Shamilat Deh , if it is being used as a house before commencement of “this Act”. Section 2(g)(vi) was incorporated into the 1961 Act in the year 1981 and reads as follows:-

¶24

“2(g)(vi) lies outside the abadi deh and was being used as gitwar, bara, manure pit, house or for cottage industry, immediately before the commencement of this Act.”

¶25

The words “this Act”, appearing in Section 2(g)(vi) of the

¶26

CWP No.18122 of 1995

¶27

-3-

¶28

1961 Act, refer to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and not to Act No.2 of 1981, whereby Section 2(g)(vi) was introduced in the 1961 Act. The respondent was, therefore, required to prove that his house was in existence before 04.05.1961. The Collector has wrongly construed the words “this Act” to denote Amending Act No.2 of 1981 and, therefore, wrongly held that as the house was constructed 20/25 years ago, it is excluded from Shamilat Deh . Respondent No.4 has not produced any evidence that his house was constructed prior to 04.05.1961, the date of enactment of the 1961 Act. The finding recorded by the Collector, based upon a misreading of Section 2(g)(vi) of the 1961 Act, is legally incorrect and is hereby set aside.

¶29

However, so far as the petitioner claims that the land, in dispute, was occupied by a kacha house before enactment of the 1961 Act and was only reconstructed 20 to 25 years ago, before filing of the ejectment petition, liberty is granted to respondent No.4 to seek his remedy for purchase of the land by approaching the Gram Panchayat, in accordance with law.

¶30

In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the impugned order is set aside, the writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid liberty.

¶31

(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE

¶32

19.02.2013 (REKHA MITTAL) adhikari JUDGE

Gram Panchayat Pangaltu v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Panchayat Pangaltu v. State of Haryana & 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

Mansa Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Siri Niwas & Ors. Vs Commissioner Hisar Range & Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Krishan Lal Vs Director Consolidation Haryana and Ors.

Jeet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Harjit & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.