Allowed

Bharto Devi and Ors. v. the Collector Kurukshetra and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Jul 2013CWP/2383/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a writ petition challenging ejectment proceedings. The court held that fresh proceedings for ejectment violated prior directions to determine title under Section 13A of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. The case was remitted for title adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed; case remitted to Assistant Collector to decide question of title under Section 13A of the Act; proceedings to conclude within six months.

Bharto Devi and Ors. Vs the Collector Kurukshetra… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 2383 of 1994 (O&M)

¶3

Date of Decision: 26.7.2013

¶4

Bharto Devi and Others

¶5

... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Collector, Kurukshetra and Others

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

Present: Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. D.Khanna, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶12

Mr. O.P.S.Tanwar, Advocate for Legal Representatives of respondent No.3.

¶13

Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶14

Jasbir Singh, Judge (Oral)

¶15

Civil Misc. No. 9922 of 2013

¶16

Counsel for the applicants/petitioners wishes to withdraw this

¶17

application.

¶18

Ordered accordingly.

¶19

Civil Misc. No. 11007 of 2011

¶20

This application has been filed to bring on record the names of legal representatives of deceased Amar Singh-respondent No.3 who is stated to have died on 29.9.2005. Names of the legal representatives are given in paragraph No.2 of this application. The application is

¶21

Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2013.08.06 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶22

Civil Writ Petition No. 2383 of 1994 (O&M)

¶23

¶24

accompanied by an affidavit.

¶25

In view of the averments made in the application, it is allowed subject to all just exceptions. The persons, whose names are mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the application, are ordered to be brought on record as legal representatives of deceased Amar Singh-respondent No.3. The legal representatives are represented by Mr.O.P.S.Tanwar, Advocate. Registry is directed to take on record amended memo of parties, which is annexed with the application.

¶26

Civil Writ Petition No. 2383 of 1994

¶27

With the consent of counsel for the parties, Civil Writ Petition No. 2383 of 1994 is taken up on board for final hearing and disposal today itself.

¶28

The process to eject the petitioners from the land measuring 1 kanal falling in khasra No. 79 and 4 kanals 1 marla of land falling in khasra No. 80 was started at the instance of Amar Singh, deceased. An ejectment order was passed against the petitioners on 31.3.1978 by the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade. Appeal filed by their father was dismissed on 10.10.1978. Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 219 of 1979 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.7.1986, qua land measuring 4 kanals 1 marla falling in khasra No. 80 (reserved for circular road of the village), the writ petition was dismissed. However, qua 1 kanal of land falling in khasra No.79, the directions were issued to the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, to convert the proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the

¶29

Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2013.08.06 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶30

Civil Writ Petition No. 2383 of 1994 (O&M)

¶31

¶32

Act”) into the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act to decide question of title and then pass an appropriate order. The parties were directed to appear before the above officer on 25.8.1986. Relevant portion of that order reads thus:-

¶33

“I, therefore, allow this petition to the limited extent so far as it relates to one kanal area on which the petitioner has constructed his house in khasra No. 79 and while setting aside the impugned orders, send the case back to the Assistant Collector with the direction that he would convert the present petition under Section 7 of the Act into a suit under Section 13 of the Act and after affording the parties a fair opportunity of leading evidence in support of their respective claims, would redetermine as to whether the area underneath the petitioner's house did vest in the Panchayat or not. In case he comes to the conclusion that it did vest in the Panchayat, only then he would pass an order of possession in favour of the Panchayat. For clarity's sake it may be mentioned here that with respect to the rest of the suit land, i.e. excluding one kanal out of khasra No. 79 on which the petitioner has already constructed a house, the petition is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. They are directed through their respective counsel to appear before the Assistant Collector on August 25, 1986

¶34

Letters Patent Appeal filed by the petitioners against the above said order was also dismissed. Thereafter, it appears that the Collector did not comply with the directions issued by this Court. Ejectment proceedings were again initiated against the petitioners qua the land mentioned above falling in khasra Nos.79 & 80 on a fresh application filed by Amar Singh, deceased. The ejectment order was passed on

¶35

Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2013.08.06 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶36

Civil Writ Petition No. 2383 of 1994 (O&M)

¶37

¶38

9.4.1993. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Collector, Kurukshetra on 30.8.1993.

¶39

It is grievance of the petitioners that the proceedings for their ejectment from the land falling in khasra No. 79 were started afresh without complying with the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 29.7.1986. By making reference to the copies of jamabandi on record, it is stated that land falling in khasra No. 79 measuring 33 kanals 16 marlas was reserved for abadi during consolidation proceedings. Unless it is proved by the Gram Panchayat or the complainant that the land in dispute, in possession of the petitioners, was being used for common purpose, it would not fall within the definition of shamlat deh land.

¶40

After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade has shown scant respect to the directions issued by this Court as referred to above. Specific directions were issued to decide question of title under Section 13 of the Act so far as 1 kanal of land falling in khasra No. 79 is concerned. It was not so done. Rather fresh ejectment proceedings under Section 7 of the Act, were started and order was passed against the petitioners.

¶41

Admittedly, the land falling in khasra No. 79 is shown as abadi deh . Grievance of the petitioners that the land in their possession would not fall within the definition of shamlat deh alone remain un-addressed. Despite noting orders passed by this Court, the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade did not bother to take up the appropriate proceedings to decide question of title. At the time of arguments, it is specifically stated by

¶42

Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2013.08.06 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶43

Civil Writ Petition No. 2383 of 1994 (O&M)

¶44

¶45

counsel for the petitioners that so far as the land falling in khasra No. 80 is concerned, they have vacated possession of the same. Be that as it may, qua their ejectment from that portion of the land, order has already become final. If they have not vacated the same, proceedings be initiated against them to eject them and possession of land falling in khasra No. 80 be got cleared may be by taking the police help.

¶46

So far as the land measuring 1 kanal falling in khasra No. 79 is concerned, this writ petition is allowed. The case is remitted to the Assistant Collector !st Grade to decide question of title by taking up the matter as per the provisions of Section 13A of the Act as directed by this Court vide order dated 29.7.1986. Liberty is granted to both the parties to produce evidence to prove their claim and thereafter an order be passed. If it is found that the Gram Panchayat is owner of the land in dispute, then necessary ejectment order be passed against the petitioners. The parties are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Kurukshetra on 7.8.2013. Taking note of long pendency of the dispute, the officer is directed to conclude the proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Three opportunities be given to each of the parties to conclude the evidence.

¶47

(Jasbir Singh) Judge

¶48

(G.S.Sandhawalia) Judge

¶49

July 26, 2013 “DK”

¶50

Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2013.08.06 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Bharto Devi and Ors. v. the Collector Kurukshetra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharto Devi and Ors. v. the Collector Kurukshetra 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

Harbhajan Kaur Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Inderjit Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Anees Ahmed Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jagtar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Gurdial Singh Alias Hardial Singh Alias Dalli Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Mahender Singh Vs Collector Cum Deputy Commissioner Jhajjar and Ors.