Disposed

Kamla Devi & Ors. v. Asst. Collector & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Feb 2015CWP/16602/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging eviction orders under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. The court upheld eviction for excess land while affirming protection for 9 kanal 16 marla, noting parties accepted the 1978 order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; possession of 9K 16M land protected; eviction for remaining land upheld.

Kamla Devi & Ors. Vs Asst. Collector & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.16602 of 1992 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.02.2015

¶4

¶5

Kamla Devi & Ors. ... Petitioners

¶6

VS.

¶7

Assistant Collector,

¶8

Ist Grade, Mohindergarh& Ors. ... Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

¶11

¶12

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

¶16

Present: Mr. DS Bali, Senior Advocate with

¶17

Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate for the petitioners

¶18

Mr. RKS Brar, Addl. AG Haryana

¶19

Mr. RKGupta, Advocate for respondent NO.3

¶20

¶21

SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)

¶22

(1) The orders dated 30.04.1991 and 26.08.1992 (Annexure P4 & P5) passed by the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, and the Collector Mahindergarh, respectively are under challenge in this petition. Vide the first order, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners late Sheo Narain Singh was ordered to be evicted from the Gram Panchayat land except land measuring 9 kanal 16 marla out of the total land measuring 34K 6M fully described in the opening part of the order and vide subsequent order, Sheo Narain Singh’s appeal against the abovestated order was dismissed by the Collector.

¶23

(2) The above-stated orders were passed pursuant to the eviction proceedings initiated by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7

¶24

V.VISHAL 2015.03.12 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶25

��

¶26

�� ��

¶27

of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The short question that arose for consideration in those summary proceedings was whether the land measuring 34K 6M was ‘shamlat deh’ duly vested in the Gram Panchayat or it was liable to be excluded from the ambit of ‘shamlat deh’ in view of Section 2(g)(iii) on the premise that Sheo Narain Singh and prior thereto his father Surjan Singh were in its possession prior to 26.01.1950?

¶28

(3) The Assistant Collector 1^st Grade as well as the Collector have decided the aforesaid issue summarily as this very question was earlier raked up in similar eviction petition initiated under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, by the BDPO Ateli on behalf of Gram Panchayat against Sheo Narain Singh. Those proceedings were decided on 29.03.1978 (Annexure P6) and vide that order, the Assistant Collector held as follows:-

¶29

“On the basis of the above said arguments, I came to the conclusion that the respondents are in cultivating possession of the land in dispute prior to 26.01.1950, but only 9 kanal 16 marlas of Samlat Deh came in his share. Thus, therefore, he is entitled to protect the possession with the same under Section 2(g) (8) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and from the rest of the land they are liable to be ejected. Thus, the

¶30

possession of the respondent on 9 kanal 16 marla of the land in dispute is protected under Section 2(g) (8) of the

¶31

V.VISHAL 2015.03.12 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶32

��

¶33

�� ��

¶34

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and from the rest of the land he is ordered to be ejected.”

¶35

(4) Neither the Gram Panchayat nor the petitioner or their predecessor-in-interest challenged and apparently both the parties reconciled with the above-mentioned finding of fact.

¶36

(5) It further appears that even after accepting his entitlement to retain possession of land measuring 9K-16M, Sheo Narain continued to retain possession of the land excess to his share due to which subsequent eviction proceedings were initiated by the Gram Panchayat.

¶37

(6) We have heard their learned counsel with respect to the petitioners’ claim for remaining land and keeping in view the entries in the revenue record (Annexure P1 & P3), we are satisfied that the petitioners do not have claim over the suit land beyond what has been protected vide order dated 29.03.1978 (Annexure P6).

¶38

(7) It is stated by learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat that the possession of the suit land (except 9K 16M) has already been taken from the petitioner through police help and they are no longer in its possession.

¶39

(8) In this view of the matter and taking into consideration the fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat that the petitioners’s possession qua 9K-16M has already been protected, we dispose of the writ petition with a clarificatory direction that since the parties have accepted the order datred 29.03.1978 passed by

¶40

V.VISHAL 2015.03.12 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶41

��

¶42

�� ��

¶43

Assistant Collector 1^st Grade Narnaul (Annexure P6) the possession of the petitioners qua the land measuring 9K 16M shall remain duly protected whereas the eviction orders qua the remaining land are

upheld.

��

��

�� 

V.VISHAL 2015.03.12 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Kamla Devi & Ors. v. Asst. Collector & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamla Devi & Ors. v. Asst. Collector & 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

Krishna Real Estate Enterprises P Ltd. Vs Director Rural Development & Panchayat Pb. & Ors.

Balak Ram Alias Govind and Ors. Vs Commissioner-Cum-Secretary Rehabilitation and Ors.

Mangat Ram Vs Chief Canal Officer & Ors.

Sardul Singh & Ors. Vs Financial Commissioner & Ors.

Sinder @ Polu and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Vikram Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.