Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daroga vs State Of Haryana And Others on 30 November, 2012
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Rekha Mittal
Civil Writ Petition No.17442 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.17442 of 2011
Date of Order: 30.11.2012
Daroga
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL
Present:Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. D.Khanna, Addl. A.G.,Haryana
for respondents no.1 to 5.
Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate
for respondent no.6.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)
The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing orders of his eviction, passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gurgaon and the dismissal of his appeal and revision by the Collector, Gurgaon and the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, respectively.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the land, in dispute, is in possession of the petitioner since the time of his forefathers and the petitioner has constructed a small house and uses the remaining land for tethering of cattle. The petitioner is also recorded as "Gair Marusi". It is further submitted that in a similar petition, filed by the Gram Panchayat, the Assistant Collector, vide order dated Civil Writ Petition No.17442 of 2011 -2- 09.11.1979, directed the Block Development and Panchayat Officer to initiate proceedings for purchase of the land by the petitioner. The Gram Panchayat, instead of allowing the petitioner to purchase the land, has filed a fresh petition for ejectment. It is further submitted that, during pendency of proceedings, Rule 12(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, as applicable to the State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1964 Rules') was enacted, which enables a person, in possession, to purchase the land/house in his possession. The Gram Panchayat may, therefore, be directed to allow the petitioner to purchase the land, in dispute.
Counsel for the Gram Panchayat submits that the house constructed by the petitioner is in five marla of land, whereas the remaining land is being used for agricultural purposes. The orders of ejectment do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law as the petitioner has not been able to prove any right in or to the land in dispute. The petitioner's claim that as he has constructed a small house, if true, the petitioner is at liberty to seek his remedy under Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules.
We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders.
The land, in dispute, is, admittedly, recorded as ownership of the Gram Panchayat, The petitioner has not been able to prove by way of any entry in the record of rights or otherwise that he has any right, title or interest in the land, in dispute. The submission by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has constructed a house Civil Writ Petition No.17442 of 2011 -3- and uses the remaining land for tethering of cattle, is incorrect as only five marlas of land, is occupied by the house. The petitioner cannot possibly tether cattle in the remaining land measuring 14 kanals, i.e., almost two acres. It appears that the land, in dispute, is being cultivated by the petitioner and on a small piece of land, the petitioner may have constructed a small kacha room/house. The petitioner's plea that as he is recorded as "Gair Marusi" in the column of cultivation, it proves that he is tenant at will, does not entitle the petitioner to any benefit as the expression "Gair Marusi" is meaningless, without a lease deed or an entry in the column of rent, recording the rate of rent. In the absence of any entry as to the rate of rent or any other evidence, the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of Gram Panchayat land, without any right, title or interest, therein.
In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the impugned orders are affirmed, the writ petition is dismissed but as the petitioner has constructed a small house, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Gram Panchayat, by an application, under Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules. In case, such an application is filed, within one month, it shall be considered and decided within three months.
Parties shall maintain status quo with respect to the house of the petitioner but before the application is taken up for consideration, the petitioner would be required to vacate land other than the land beneath his house and deliver vacant possession of the remaining land to the Gram Panchayat. In case the petitioner does not abide by these terms, the Gram Panchayat would be Civil Writ Petition No.17442 of 2011 -4- entitled to seek execution of the impugned orders, in accordance with law.
(RAJIVE BHALLA)
JUDGE
November 30, 2012 (REKHA MITTAL)
nt JUDGE