Dismissed

Mehnga Singh & Ors. v. Director Rural Dev. & Panchayats Pb. etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Mar 2015CWP/5223/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging an eviction order regarding common village lands. The court declined to interfere, noting the impugned order was already affirmed and explained by a Division Bench in a related matter.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the impugned order had already been affirmed by a Division Bench in a related matter.

Mehnga Singh & Ors. Vs Director Rural Dev… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 5223 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No. 5223 of 2015. Date of Order: 23.03.2015

¶5

Mehnga Singh and others

¶6

..Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and others.

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)

¶13

The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing order dated 08.05.2014 (Annexure P-5) (wrongly referred to as 08.05.2013), passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner) under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), ordering the eviction of the petitioners by rejecting their claim that they were in cultivating possession, prior to 26.01.1950.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the land is not “Shamilat Deh” as the petitioners' predecessors were owners in possession, in accordance with their share holding, prior to 26.01.1950. The Appellate Authority has erred in accepting the petition filed by the Gram Panchayat and holding that the land was leased out by the Gram Panchayat to the petitioners.

¶15

We have heard counsel for the petitioners but are not inclined NARESH KUMARto entertain the writ petition particularly as Civil Writ Petition No.12615 of 2015.03.27 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

Civil Writ Petition No. 5223 of 2015

¶17

-2-

¶18

2014 ( Darbara Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others) ,

¶19

arising from the same order, was admittedly dismissed on 28.07.2014, by holding as follows:-

¶20

“ We do not fine any merit in the arguments raised. In the jamabandi for the year 1942-43 (Annexure P-10), the land is described in the ownership column as shamilat deh hasab rasad khewat. Though, in such land Uttam Singh and Gurdas Singh are reflected in the column of possession, but most of the land is banjar qadim. Such land is not a cultivable land. Still further, the petitioners have not proved their extent of holding in the village and not proved that they were in possession of land, not exceeding their share in the village holding. Neither there is any proof of holding of the petitioners in the village, nor they are in proved to be in cultivating possession. Even the possession was interrupted at least till 1985-86, before the order was passed by the Director Consolidation. Consequently, none of the conditions of Exception (viii) of Section 2(g) of the Act are satisfied by the petitioners. In fact, one of the corespondent before the Commissioner has made a statement that the possession of the land has been given to Gram Panchayat.

¶21

A Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.54 of 2012 titled as Gram Panchayat of Village Bajghera Vs. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Haryana

¶22

and others' , decided on 07.05.2014 has examined the question of vesting of land described in the revenue

¶23

NARESH KUMAR 2015.03.27 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

Civil Writ Petition No. 5223 of 2015

¶25

-3-

¶26

record as shamilat deh hasab rasad khewat. It has been held that such land is owned by the panchayat in terms of Section 2(g)(1) read with Section 4(1)(a) of the Act.

¶27

For the reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgment and the facts of the present case, we do not find any case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶28

Dismissed.”

¶29

In view of the fact that the impugned order has already been affirmed, by the aforesaid order, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶30

(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE

¶31

March 23, 2015 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) nt JUDGE

¶32

NARESH KUMAR 2015.03.27 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Mehnga Singh & Ors. v. Director Rural Dev. & Panchayats Pb. etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehnga Singh & Ors. v. Director Rural Dev. & Panchayats Pb. etc.

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

Basant Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harprit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Pista Devi Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Punjab Wakf Board Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Anand Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.