Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chandan Ratra vs State Of Haryana on 6 December, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1996)114PLR306
Author: T.H.B. Chalapathi
Bench: T.H.B. Chalapathi
JUDGMENT T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.
1. This writ petition is filed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot the area in question which is adjacent to the area of the petitioner in view of the policy decision of the Government vide Ann. P.7.
2. The brief facts are:
The petitioner is claiming to be the owner of the premises No. 1-D/14, BP situated in the NIT, Faridabad, measuring about 18 sq. Yds. The boundaries of the said plot are as follows:
North : The adjacent land belong to the Ministry of Rehabilitation in possession of the Plaintiff.
South : Remaining portion of the premises I-D/14, BP, NIT, Faridabad.
East: Remaining portion of the premises I-D/14, BP, NIT, Faridabad.
West: Road.
According to the petitioner, originally the entire plot I-D/14, BP, NIT, Faridabad belonged to one Mohan Lal Ratra and after his death the same was inherited by his widow Sheela Devi who executed a registered Will dated 13.3.1985 in respect of 89 sq. yards out of the land of plot No. 1-D/14 BP, NIT, Faridabad in favour of the petitioner. There was some litigation between Sheela Devi and Gurdwara Singh Sabha in civil suit No. 164 of 1985 and that the said suit was later compromised on 16.5.1986 and by virtue of the said compromise, the petitioner became absolute owner of 89 sq. yards. Adjacent to 89 sq. yards there is land belonging to the Ministry of Rehabilitation measuring 60'x15'. As the strip of land is adjacent to the plot of the petitioner, it is under occupation of the petitioner. The petitioner also gave the same on rent on temporary basis for exhibition of the handloom in the year 1982 to the 4th respondent who put up a tent in the land measuring 15'x25' and he has also been-paying rent of the vacant land to the Gurdwara Singh Sabha who was authorised by Sheela Devi to collect the rent. The Government of India issued a Policy decision on 28.2.1984 in regard to disposal of the adjacent land belonging to Rehabilitation Department to the owners adjoining the same. Thus the land of the Department of Rehabilitation amalgamated with the plot of the petitioner bearing No. 1-D/14, BP, NIT, Faridabad and therefore, the land in which the 4th respondent put up tent is partially with the petitioner's land and partially adjacent to the land belonging to the Rehabilitation Department. In view of the policy decision of the Government, the petitioner is entitled to the said land as he is the owner of the land adjacent to the said land. The petitioner made several representations to the State of Haryana for transfer of the said land to him at the rate fixed by the State as he has been in occupation of the same. But the 4th respondent also approached the State of Haryana for allotment as he claimed himself to be the occupant thereof but as the petitioner could not challenge the legality of the instructions and notification issued by the Government, he filed the present writ petition. Therefore he prayed for a direction to respondents to allot the land adjacent to his land to him.
3. The 4th respondent filed a written statement contending that he is the occupier of the land measuring 26"x 15", which is adjacent to the land of the petitioner and that the same had been transferred in his favour by the Government and he deposited an amount of Rs. 43,000/-, on 27.7.1978 and a sale certificate had also been issued to him even before filing of the present writ petition. He further submitted that he is running a shop having electric connection since 1975 an his name was entered in the voters list for the year 1979 and the petitioner cannot claim any right to the land in dispute which is marked ABC attached with the writ petition and the instructions do not apply to the present plot and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. The petitioner is basing his claim for the land adjacent to the land owned by him on the policy decision taken by the Haryana Government in regard to the disposal of the land situated between the national highway and the private lands. The said policy in regard to the disposal of the adjacent land was issued on 28.2.1984. According to the said Memo, the land between the main road and the houses had to be sold to the occupants. The petitioner is claimed to be an occupant of the land adjacent to the Government land whereas the 4th respondent is claiming that he is the occupant of that land. The 4th respondent already purchased the said property and he has deposited the amount and a sale certificate has also been issued to him.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that he leased out the property to 4th respondent for conducting a handloom exhibition but the petitioner did not produce any evidence to show that he leased out the land to the 4th respondent for holding a handloom exhibition. Admittedly the 4th respondent has been in possession of the land in dispute. Unless the petitioner establishes that he is the occupant of the land and the 4th respondent is his tenant by virtue of the lease granted in favour of the 4th respondent, the petitioner cannot succeed. The petitioner has not placed any material before the Court that he leased out the land to the 4th respondent. In the absence of any material to show that the 4th respondent was the tenant of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be said to be an occupant of the land in dispute. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in CWP No. 6521 (Sri Guru Singh Sabha (Regd) v. State of Haryana and Ors.), decided on 4.6.1991, is of no use to the petitioner. In that decision, the following observations of the learned Single Judge make it very clear:
"In the present case, the land had been occupied by construction of shops. The shops in question had been transferred to the petitioner by a gift deed executed by the owner/unauthorised occupant. As a result, the petitioner stepped into the shoes of the donor. It became the owner/occupant. It is the owner of the shops who is the occupant of the correctional area/adjacent land. The person who is a tenant in the shop is not the occupant of the land. The tenant has been permitted the use the shop for which rent is being paid to the petitioner. The land under the 'shop' is for all intents and purposes in the occupation of 'its' owner."
6. The above decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The land in dispute is a vacant land. No shop has been constructed. According to the petitioner, he leased out the land to the 4th respondent for holding a handloom exhibition for a short time but after conclusion of the handloom the 4th respondent raised some construction using the land and these constructions were, temporary constructions. It is not the case of the petitioner that he made construction on the land and then lease out to the 4th respondent. As already observed, there is also no evidence to show that the 4th respondent was a tenant of the petitioner.
7. Admittedly, the 4th respondent has been in possession of the land and has raised some constructions thereon and has been living therein and runs his own business. There is no evidence to show that the 4th respondent ever paid any rent to the petitioner at any time. Therefore, the 4th respondent cannot be said to be a tenant for any part of the land under the petitioner. As the petitioner is not occupant, his is not entitled to get any relief, under the instructions issued by the Government for the disposal of the adjacent land of correctional area.
8. In view of my above discussion, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.