Punjab-Haryana High Court
Damanjit Kaur vs State Of Haryana Th Financial ... on 6 May, 2016
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
CR No. 3210 of 2016 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CR No. 3210 of 2016 (O&M)
Date of decision : May 6, 2016
Damanjit Kaur
.......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:- Mr. Manohar Lall, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
Amit Rawal, J (oral).
Notice of motion.
Mr. D. K. Mittal, DAG., Haryana who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.
The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that original owner Jaswant Singh being small land owners and applied in Form K1 dated 16.2.2005 for ejectment of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 from the land measuring 20 Kanals 11 Marlas as described in the petition and also prays for possession.
The ejectment order was issued by respondent No.2 on 3.12.2009 (Annexure P-1) wherein it was held that the land owner was entitled to possession subject to allotment of 5 standard acres of land to the respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The petitioner purchased the aforementioned land vide sale deed dated 25.3.2011, 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:36:32 ::: CR No. 3210 of 2016 (O&M) 2 thus stepped into the shores of original owner Jaswant Singh and execution application of the order dated 3.12.2009 was filed but the same was dismissed vide order dated 19.2.2016 (Annexure P-3) on ground that respondent has filed civil suit wherein dispossession is stayed and ejectment order dated 3.12.2009 was a conditional one as the tenants were to be allotted 5 standard acres of land from the surplus land.
He further submits that the suit stated to have been filed by the respondents was dismissed as withdrawn on 6.1.2004 and the application was filed but the same has also been rejected vide Annexure P-3 on the ground that till date neither the Government declared any surplus area nor any committee had been constituted for the purpose, thus, grievance of the petitioner is that no purpose would be served of having purchased the land from the erstwhile owner who was allotted the land and ejectment order has already been passed almost seven years ago. As per Rule 16 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules, 1956, the Government was required to take suo motu action with regard to the measures having been taken for declaring the land surplus or constitution of a committee.
He further submits that power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is wider. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others (2003) 6 SCC 675, thus urges this Court for issuing appropriate directions to the State of Haryana for complying with the directions contained in the order dated 3.12.2009.
2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:36:33 ::: CR No. 3210 of 2016 (O&M) 3 For the sake of brevity the directions contained in the order dated 3.12.2009 reads thus:-
"I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the file. It is amply clear from the documents produced on the file that the petitioners are small land owners. It is also proved from the documents produced on the file that the respondents are owners of only 2 Kanal 10 Marla and they are cultivating the disputed land as tenants at the rate of 1/3rd Batai. Under Section 9 (A) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1973, the tenants cannot be evicted till they are allotted 5 standard acres of land from the suprlus land. In other words under law the tenants are to be allotted 5 standard acres of land from the surplus land before they could be evicted.
Both the learned counsel for the parties are agreeable to this proposition of law and both admit this fundamental law.
Therefore, after hearing the detailed arguments of both the parties and perusing the facts brought on record, I order the eviction of the respondents from the disputed land but this order will not be implemented till the tenants are allotted land from the surplus land in accordance with law. A copy of this order be sent to the Sub Divisional Officer (c)cum-Prescribed Authority, Jagadhri. The file be consigned to the record room after compliance and indexing."
The present revision petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to comply with the directions 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:36:33 ::: CR No. 3210 of 2016 (O&M) 4 aforementioned and make efforts in identifying and declaring the land surplus for the purpose of allotment to respondent Nos. 4 to 6 within a reasonable time preferably within a period of four months. It is expected that the aforementioned exercise should be done within the aforementioned period as already more than seven years had lapsed after passing of the order dated 3.12.2009.
The revision petition in aforementioned terms stands disposed of.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE May 6 , 2016 archana 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:36:33 :::