Allowed

Ram Singh v. Assistant Collector and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jul 2013CWP/7657/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of six writ petitions challenging ejection orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner regarding land owned by a Gram Panchayat. Relying on amended provisions allowing land transfer to underprivileged sections, the Court quashed the impugned orders, mandated the Deputy Commissioner to assess market value, and directed the transfer of land to the petitioners against the

What did the court decide?

All writ petitions allowed; ejection orders quashed; land to be transferred to petitioners against market price; Deputy Commissioner directed to assess value.

Ram Singh Vs Assistant Collector and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No. 7657 of 1995 and connected matters

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

*********

¶5

	Date of decision : 3.7.2013 1. CWP No. 7657 of 1995
Ram Singh	Vs.	........Petitioner
The Assistant Collector	Ist Grade, Narnaul and others	......Respondents
	2. CWP No. 7089 of 1995
Kanha Ram	Vs.	........Petitioner
The Assistant Collector	Ist Grade, Narnaul and others	....Respondents
	3. CWP No. 7658 of 1995
Ram Karan	Vs.	........Petitioner
The Assistant Collector	Ist Grade, Narnaul and others	....Respondents
	4. CWP No. 7659 of 1995
Kanwar Singh	Vs.	........Petitioner
The Assistant Collector	Ist Grade, Narnaul and others	....Respondents
	5. CWP No. 7660 of 1995
Jagmal and another	Vs.	........Petitioners
The Assistant Collector	Ist Grade, Narnaul and others	.......Respondents
	6. CWP No. 7661 of 1995
Shankar	Vs.	........Petitioner
The Assistant Collector	Ist Grade, Narnaul and others	....Respondents

¶6

Kumar Ashwani 2013.07.23 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶7

CWP No. 7657 of 1995 and connected matters

¶8

-2-

¶9

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

¶10

Present:Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Addl. AG, Haryana Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.4

¶11

Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)

¶12

This order shall dispose of six writ petitions bearing CWP No. 7657 of 1995 titled as ''Ram Singh v. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Narnaul and others', CWP No. 7089 of 1995 titled as 'Kanha Ram v. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Narnaul and others, CWP No. 7658 of 1995 titled as 'Ram Karan v. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Narnaul and others', CWP No. 7659 of 1995 titled as 'Kanwar Singh v. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Narnaul and others', CWP No. 7660 of 1995 titled as 'Jagmal and another v. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Narnaul and others' and CWP No. 7661 of 1995 titled as 'Shankar v. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Narnaul and others' as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The facts are being taken from CWP No. 7657 of 1995 for dictating the order.

¶13

The petitioner belongs to a poor section of the society. He is resident of Village Tajipur, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mohindergarh. He had constructed house on 4 marlas of land owned by the Gram Panchayat, which necessitated filing of an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') against him for his ejectment. On that application, moved by the Gram Panchayat, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Narnaul vide order dated 2.3.1994 directed transfer of the land measuring 4 marlas, in favour of the petitioner against the market price. The petitioner was directed to deposit the amount, failing which he was ordered to be

¶14

Kumar Ashwani 2013.07.23 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CWP No. 7657 of 1995 and connected matters

¶16

-3-

¶17

ejected from the land in dispute. The Gram Panchayat went in appeal which was allowed by the Collector, Mohindergarh on 26.10.1994. It was observed that the order dated 2.3.1994, allowing transfer of land against market value in favour of the petitioner was not justified. Taking note of Gram Panchayat's ownership, as per revenue record, ejectment of the petitioner was ordered from the above said land. The petitioner approached the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon in revision, which was dismissed by that authority vide order dated 10.2.1995. Hence, this writ petition.

¶18

In this writ petition it is stated by the petitioner that he was in possession of the land in dispute for the last more than 100 years. It may not be correct. No such evidence is there to prove that fact.

¶19

This Court has noticed that the petitioner is a poor person and he has constructed his house on 4 marlas of land i.e. a very small piece of land. So is the case in other writ petitions.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner states that the State of Haryana has incorporated an amendment in the Act providing gift, sale, exchange or lease of land by the Gram Panchayat to Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes and any other category of persons. It is submitted that as per that provision, this land can be transferred in favour of the petitioner against price.

¶21

We have seen above provision of the Act. Section 5A was added in the Act by an amendment in the year 2007. The said provision of the Act reads thus :-

¶22

“ 5A. Disposal of lands vested or deemed to have been vested in Panchayat- (1) A Panchayat may, on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, gift, sale, exchange or lease the land in shamilat deh vested in it under this Act to the members of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes of the village in which such land is situated and to the persons of any other category.

¶23

Kumar Ashwani 2013.07.23 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CWP No. 7657 of 1995 and connected matters

¶25

-4-

¶26

(2) The gift, sale, exchange or lease of land in shamilat deh already made shall be deemed to have been made under sub-section (1).” Thereafter, corresponding provision was also made for transfer of land to such like persons and Rule 12 was added in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, as applicable to Haryana (in short 'the Rules') by making an amendment.

¶27

Sub Rule (4) of Rule 12 of the Rules reads thus :-

¶28

“ 12. Purposes for which land may be sold. Sections 5 and 15(2) (f) - (1) to (3) xxx xxx xxx xxx (4) The Gram Panchayat may with the prior approval of the State Government, sell its non cultivable land in shamilat deh to the inhabitants of the village who have constructed their houses on or before the 31^st March, 2000, not resulting in any obstruction to the traffic and passers-by, along with open space upto 25% of the constructed area or an appurtenant area upto a maximum of 200 square yards at not less than collector rate, floor rate or market rate, whichever is higher.”

¶29

The above said provisions were not in existence when orders were passed by the Collector and the Commissioner in this case.

¶30

It has also been brought to our notice that the State of Haryana has formulated a Scheme known as “Mahatma Gandhi Gramin Basti Yojna” on 1.2.2009, envisaging allotment of 100 square yards land out of the Gram Panchayat's land to the non-proprietors and other deserving persons. The said Scheme was upheld by this Court in CWP No. 9180 of 2009 titled as 'Rajbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others' decided on 16.11.2009.

¶31

It is not in dispute that the petitioners in all these writ petitions belong to a underprivileged section of the society. They have constructed their small houses by spending earnings of their entire life. If, at this stage, the petitioners are ordered to be ejected from this land/houses, it will be a huge loss

¶32

Kumar Ashwani 2013.07.23 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

CWP No. 7657 of 1995 and connected matters

¶34

-5-

¶35

to them because they have no other place to live in, whereas to the contrary, the

¶36

Gram Panchayat is not going to be benefitted by such like order.

¶37

At this stage, counsel for the petitioner very fairly stated that in terms of Rule 12(4) of the Rules, let the Gram Panchayat transfer the land in dispute to the petitioners against current market price.

¶38

Under the circumstances, we allow all these writ petitions and quash the orders Annexure P-2 dated 26.10.1994 and P-3 dated 10.2.1995. Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul is directed to assess value of the land in dispute and transfer the land in favour of the petitioners accordingly.

¶39

Needful shall be done within 2 months from the receipt of a copy of

¶40

this order.

¶41

(Jasbir Singh) Judge

¶42

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Judge

¶43

3.7.2013 Ashwani

¶44

Kumar Ashwani 2013.07.23 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ram Singh v. Assistant Collector and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh v. Assistant Collector and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Haryana Vs Jitender etc.

Amritpal Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Manoj @ Panu Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ram Karan Vs Assistant Collector and Ors.

Kanwar Singh Vs Assistant Collector and Ors.

Jagmal and Anr. Vs Assistant Collector and Ors.