Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shyamlal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 August, 2013
Bench: Jasbir Singh, G.S. Sandhawalia
CWP No. 1197 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
CWP No. 1197 of 2013
Date of decision : 12.8.2013
Shyamlal and others ........Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia
Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr. D. Khanna, Addl. AG, Haryana
Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4
---
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue directions to the respondents to complete the sale proceedings in pursuant to orders dated 19.12.1992 and 24.2.1999. Further prayer of the petitioner is to issue a title deed in their favour and to initiate action on the representation submitted by them.
Gram Panchayat-respondent No.4 filed an application for ejectment of some of the petitioners, from the land falling in Khasra No.85. It was an allegation against them that land, which is under ownership of the Gram Panchayat, was un-authorisedly occupied by the respondents in those proceedings, and they had raised construction thereupon, without any authority. The competent authority, after making a spot inspection and noting entries in the revenue record, came to a conclusion that possession of the respondents in those proceedings, was Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.29 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 1197 of 2013 -2- very old. They have raised construction there and using it as their residences. It was ordered on 19.12.1992 (P-1) that they be allowed to pay price of the land and 10% composition fee to the Gram Panchayat, to retain possession of the land. That order was not challenged by the Gram Panchayat and it has become final qua respondents in those proceedings.
Thereafter, another similar order was passed on 24.2.1999 (P-
2), holding that possession was very old. Similar directions were issued, allowing possession of land, subject to depositing double market value along with ` 1,000/-towards penalty.
It is on record that in response to above order, 39 persons deposited the amount against receipt. It is so reflected in resolution Annexure P-3 dated 13.8.2000.
The Gram Panchayat made a request to the Deputy Commissioner to approve the sale of land in favour of the petitioners. Again a resolution was passed on 5.1.2004. Right to execute sale deed in favour of the petitioners/their predecessors in interest was given to the Sarpanch and one of the Panchs of the village and it was resolved that sale deed be executed in favour of the petitioners.
The Deputy Commissioner wrote a letter to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer (BD and PO) on 8.6.2001, to send the requisite record so that mutation of sale can be sanctioned in favour of the petitioners/their predecessors in interest.
Thereafter, it appears that nothing was done. The petitioners then filed a representation to complete the proceedings of sale of land in their favour. By stating above facts, this writ petition has been filed, Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.29 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 1197 of 2013 -3- claiming that directions be issued to the respondents to give formal approval of the sale, in terms of orders passed by the competent authority in the years 1992 and 1999 vide order Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively and sale deed be issued in their favour.
In reply filed, it is only stated that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, when passing orders in the year 1992 and 1999, was not competent to order sale of the property in un-authorised possession of the petitioners/their predecessors in interest.
Be that as it may. Order dated 19.12.1992 has become final and it has never been challenged. The matter came to the notice of the State Authorities when the Gram Panchayat sent a resolution to approve sale in favour of the petitioners. Nothing was done, rather the Deputy Commissioner asked the BD & PO to send the record so that the mutation be entered in the name of the petitioners.
For 10 years, no action was taken and now it is not open to say that the competent authority i.e. the Assistant Collector Ist Grade was not competent to grant permission for sale, over which construction was un-authorisedly raised, as was ordered by him vide orders dated 19.12.1992 and 24.2.1999 Annexure P-1 and P-2, respectively.
It is further stated that the land upon which construction was raised by the petitioner, was reserved for johar and some part of it was part of cremation ground.
That objection cannot be taken at this stage because it has come on record that total land shown against johar was 42 kanals, falling in Khasra Nos. 83 and 85. It is specifically stated at Bar that no Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.29 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 1197 of 2013 -4- construction was raised on land reserved for Hadda Rori and cremation ground. So far as johar land measuring 42.2 kanals is concerned, construction exists only on 23 kanals of land, which was found to be very old.
We have seen the photographs of the houses constructed thereupon, which seem to be old one's Under the circumstances, there is no justification in not granting approval to the sale, as ordered by the competent authority, in compliance to which the petitioners had deposited the requisite amount and resolutions were also passed by the Gram Panchayat for approval of the same.
Before us, counsel for the Gram Panchayat, during arguments, states that the Gram Panchayat has no objection to the sale as ordered.
In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.1-State is directed to grant formal approval of sale in favour of 39 persons, whose names found mention in Annexure P-3. Needful shall be done within four months.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge (G.S. Sandhawalia) Judge 12.8.2013 Ashwani Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.29 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document