Dismissed

Sarup Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Aug 2015CWP/7543/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenge to eviction orders from Gram Panchayat land under Punjab Village Common Lands Act. Court did not adjudicate on rent quantum but allowed petitioners to retain possession for two crop years on payment of reduced annual charges subject to strict conditions for vacating.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed subject to directions allowing petitioners to retain land for two crop years on payment of annual charges at Rs. 30,000 per acre in advance.

Sarup Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.7543 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.08.2015

Sarup Singh & Ors.

. . . . Petitioners

VS.

State of Haryana & Ors. . . . . Respondents

¶9

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

Present: Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate for the petitioners

¶13

Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG Haryana

¶14

Mr. Anil Kumar Lamdhari, Advocate for Gram Panchayat

¶15

¶16

SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)

¶17

(1) The petitioners were ordered to be evicted from the Gram Panchayat land in the proceedings initiated u/s 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as applicable to the State of Haryana. Their appeal/revision etc. were also dismissed. Those orders are under challenge in this petition.

¶18

(2) On 08.05.2015 when this case came up for hearing, the following order was passed:-

¶19

“Counsel for petitioners states that he has been instructed by the petitioners to make a statement that they give up challenge to the eviction orders, provided the Gram Panchayat allows them to remain in possession of, the land in dispute, for a period of 2/3 years on payment of rent prevalent in the area and damages levied by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, are reduced.

¶20

V.VISHAL 2015.08.28 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶21

��

¶22

�� ��

¶23

Notice of motion for 18.05.2015, limited to the extent of statement made by counsel for the petitioners.

¶24

At this stage, at the asking of the Court, Mr. D.Khanna, Addl. A.G. Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4.

¶25

The Gram Panchayat-respondent No. 5, be served by dasti process.

¶26

The parties shall maintain status quo with respect to the possession till the next date of hearing.”

¶27

(3) In deference thereto, learned counsel for Gram Panchayat states that the Gram Panchayat initially agreed to allow the petitioners to retain possession of the land on payment of �50,000/per acre but on persuasion, the amount has now been reduced to �30,000/- per acre. The Gram Panchayat is not willing to further reduce the user charges.

¶28

(4) The petitioners are apparently reluctant as according to them, the annual user charges demanded by Gram Panchayat are on the higher side. In our considered view, such a question cannot be resolved in these proceedings.

¶29

(5) The petitioner’s contention that the Gram Panchayat has leased out the land @ �12,000/- per acre per annum even if accepted, it does not clothe them with any right to retain possession of land where they have been held to be unauthorized occupants.

¶30

V.VISHAL 2015.08.28 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶31

��

¶32

�� ��

¶33

(6) In the light of the order dated 08.05.2015 reproduced above, we dismiss the writ petition but subject to the following directions:-

¶34

(i) if the petitioners agree to retain the Gram Panchayat land on payment of annual charges @ �30,000/- per acre, the Gram Panchayat may allow them to retain the land for two crop years at the same rate;

¶35

(ii) the petitioners shall be required to deposit the annual lease money for each year in advance;

¶36

(iii)� the petitioners shall give undertaking to the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat as well as BDPO of the area to the effect that immediate on expiry of the lease period and within one week of harvesting the crop, they shall hand over peaceful vacant possession of the land to the Gram Panchayat;

¶37

(iv)� The petitioner shall further undertake not to create any third party rights or alter the nature of land in any manner;

¶38

(v) the petitioner are given two weeks’ time from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, to take a decision.

�� 

�� ��

�� 

V.VISHAL 2015.08.28 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶43

��

¶44

�� ��

¶45

V.VISHAL 2015.08.28 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Sarup Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarup Singh 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

M/S Mohindra Cranks Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jiya Lal & Ors. Vs the Financial Commissioner Cum Principal Secretary to Govt. of Haryana and Ors.

Jaswant Singh and Ors. Vs Financial Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Punjab and Ors.

Nawinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Satbir Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Des Raj Vs State of Punjab and Ors.