Dismissed

Surender Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Apr 2019CWP/22592/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged orders dismissing their suit for title declaration. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding lower court findings that land is shamilat owned by the Gram Panchayat, noting petitioners failed to prove exclusive possession or produce relevant revenue records.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned orders of Collector, Commissioner, and Financial Commissioner was refused; petition dismissed.

Surender Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

105

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No. 22592 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.04.2019

¶4

Surender Singh and others

¶5

.......... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and another

¶8

.......... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI

¶10

Present: Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

¶12

JASWANT SINGH, J.

¶13

The petitioners, four (04) in number, have filed the instant writ petition against the State of Haryana and Gram Panchayat Indiwali through Sarpanch, Village Indiwali, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani, and thereby are seeking quashing of order dated 17.02.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, Bhiwani; order dated 27.11.2009 (Annexure P-2) , passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar; and order dated 06.07.2011 (Annexure P-4) , passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana, in ROR No.904 of 2009-10.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are owners in possession of the land in dispute from the time of their ancestors. The respondent-Gram Panchayat has invaded the rights of the petitioners on the basis of wrong and illegal revenue entries in its favour and as such, the petitioners have filed a suit under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961, (in short “The Act, 1961”) as applicable to the State of Haryana as amended upto date, for

¶15

Dinesh Kumar 2019.07.09 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

C.W.P. No. 22592 of 2018 (O&M)

¶17

-2-

¶18

declaration of title and relief of injunction. The order of Collector dated 17.02.2009 (P-1) , order dated 27.11.2009 (P-2) passed by Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar and order dated 06.07.2011 passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana, in ROR No.904 of 2009-10 (P-4) are totally perverse, wrong and illegal and are liable to be quashed. All the Courts have failed to exercise the jurisdiction, while passing the impugned orders. The pleadings and evidence on record were not taken into consideration. The suit under Section 13-A of “The Act, 1961” was liable to be tried as civil suit, but Collector has failed to adjudicate the matter in accordance with the mandate provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶19

Consequently, the Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner have committed an error of law by not considering the matter in right perspective. The petitioners produced and proved copy of the jamabandi of the year 1935-36 (Ex.A-1), copy of jamabandi of the year 1951-52 (Ex.A-2), copy of jamabandi of the year 1955-56, copy of Sharat Wazib-Ul-Arz and also Kursinama (Pedigree Table) during the trial of the suit. The petitioners and other co-sharers of “Patti Girdhari” are also paying land revenue to the Government of Haryana and in this manner, they are recorded as owner in possession of suit land and the Gram Panchayat Indiwali, State of Haryana and other revenue Authorities always admitted the petitioners as owner in possession of the suit land. It has been further pleaded that a change was affected in the record on the basis of a letter bearing No.70/674/R/1487 dated 25.03.1954 and on the basis of the said letter, a mutation was entered in favour of Gram Panchayat Indiwali in respect of 94 Bigha 3 Biswa of land of Khewat No.325 and 849 Bigha and 4 Dinesh Kumar 2019.07.09 18:09I attest to the accuracy and Biswa of land of Khewat No.36 Min as per jamabandi 1951-52. It has been integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

C.W.P. No. 22592 of 2018 (O&M) -3-

¶21

clearly recorded in the mutation itself that the land in question is owned by co-sharers of “Patti-girdhawari” to the extent of ½ share and “Patti Giana” to the extent of ¼ share and “Patti Lachu” to the extent of ¼ share. This alleged letter was never produced by the Gram Panchayat in evidence. The burden of proof was on the Gram Panchayat to prove that the change in the revenue record was affected in legal manner.

¶22

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the paper book very carefully.

¶23

On careful examination of the impugned orders, we find no merit in the instant petition and it deserves its dismissal outrightly. The onus rested upon the petitioners to prove that they were owner in possession of the suit land. However, during trial before the lower Court, the petitioners did not dare to produce any documentary evidence in their favour to prove their pleadings and stand that either their name or the name of their ancestors was recorded in the revenue record as owner in exclusive possession of the suit land as required under the exceptions carved out under Section 2(g) of “The Act, 1961”. The trial Court examined the documentary evidence and came to right conclusion that the nature of the land is recorded as shamilat and it was recorded in the name of the Gram Panchayat since 1951 and the Gram Panchayat was leasing out the land being its owner to which no objection was raised by the petitioners or their predecessors for years together. It was also reflected in the latest jamabandi of the year 2002-03 that the suit land was leased out by the Gram Panchayat being owner of the suit land and the name of the petitioners was no where reflected in the column of ownership as well as in the column of possession. Dinesh Kumar 2019.07.09 18:09I attest to the accuracy and The observation of the trial Court has rightly been confirmed by the other integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

C.W.P. No. 22592 of 2018 (O&M)

¶25

-4-

¶26

Revenue Authorities.

¶27

In the instant case, we find nothing wrong on the basis of which it could be said that the impugned orders are erroneous and are required to be interfered by this Court, being questions of fact.

¶28

In the totality of the facts and circumstances as discussed by us, the instant petition is hereby dismissed .

¶29

( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE

¶30

April 29, 2019 ( ARUN KUMAR TYAGI ) 'dk kamra' JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶31

Dinesh Kumar 2019.07.09 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Surender Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Budh Singh and Another Vs Joint Development Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development, Punjab and Others

Court on Its Own Motion Vs Ram Niwas Aggarwal

Nathi Ram and Ors. Vs State of Hayana and Ors.

Harpal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Meena Devi Vs Ajay Kumar and Ors.

Nachhattar Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.