Dismissed

Ram Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2015CWP/10857/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged revenue orders vesting disputed land in a Gram Panchayat under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The Court dismissed the petition due to the petitioners' failure to prove individual cultivating possession. However, the Court granted liberty to file a fresh petition if relevant records were found later.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. Liberty was granted to the petitioners to file a fresh petition if they could produce evidence of cultivating possession.

Ram Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.10857 of 2015 Date of Decision: September 10, 2015

Ram Kumar and others

.....Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH.

¶9

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

¶10

-.-

¶11

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶16

This writ petition impugns the orders 07.05.2007, 29.01.2008, 13.10.2008 and 05.03.2014 (Annexures P-3, P-4, P-6 and P-9, respectively), passed by the revenue authorities comprising the Collector, Kurukshetra and his superiors, who have rejected the petitioners' claim to declare them owners in possession of the suit land. In exercise of their jurisdiction under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana, the authorities have held that the subject land vests in Gram Panchayat.

¶17

[2] When this writ petition came up for preliminary hearing on 15.07.2015, the following order was passed:-

¶18

“.... We have heard counsel for the petitioners and are prima-facie satisfied that there is no evidence of individual cultivating possession, as required under Section 2(g) (viii) of the

¶19

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.28 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CWP No.10857 of 2015

¶21

[2]

¶22

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. However, as counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are in possession of evidence that would prove their cultivating possession prior to 26.01.1950, adjourn the hearing of the writ petition to 22.07.2015, to enable counsel for the petitioners to place on record the so-called relevant evidence....”

¶23

[3] In purported compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioners have placed on record the jamabandies for the years 1950-51 onwards claiming that their grand-father Deot Ram son of Budhan was in possession of land in dispute. No jamabandi reflecting individual cultivating possession of other petitioners or their predecessors has been attached. Similarly, from the afore-mentioned jamabandies also, it is difficult to hold that the land which was in possession of Deot Ram has been succeeded by the first petitioner as no pedigree table is on record. The old khasra numbers and the new numbers allocated during consolidation are also conspicuously missing. However, the jamabandi for the year 1954-55 (P-18 Colly.) clearly recites 'Civil Panchayat Deh' as owner of the subject land which is earmarked for common purpose of 'Gau Charand'.

¶24

[4] In these circumstances, we dismiss this writ petition on account of the petitioners' failure to answer the questions posed by this Court on 15.07.2015, namely, that there is no evidence of individual cultivating possession of the petitioners over the subject-land, which is one of the mandatory condition as required under Section 2(g)(vii) of the Punjab Village

¶25

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.28 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶26

[3]

¶27

CWP No.10857 of 2015

¶28

Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. However, we still grant liberty to the petitioners, save there is no delay and laches, to file a fresh petition, if they are able to lay hands on such record.

¶29

[5] Ordered accordingly.

¶30

[6] Dasti.

¶31

[SURYA KANT]

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

September 10, 2015 [JASPAL SINGH]

¶34

mohinder JUDGE

¶35

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.28 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶36

[4]

¶37

CWP No.10857 of 2015

¶38

CM No.11715 of 2015 in CWP No.10857 of 2015

¶39

¶40

Ram Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others

¶41

Present : Mr.R.S.Manhas, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioners. * * *

¶42

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the documents [P-17 & P-18 (colly.)] are taken on record.

¶43

CM stands disposed of.

¶44

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE

¶45

September 10, 2015 [JASPAL SINGH] mohinder JUDGE

¶46

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.28 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Ram Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana 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

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ram Swrup Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Gram Panchayat Chandpur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Harshbir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajpal Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Bansi Lal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.