Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naranjan Kaur vs Joint Director Development (Ird) ... on 4 September, 2013
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, Jaspal Singh
CWP No.10831 of 1993 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.10831 of 1993
Date of decision:September 04, 2013
Naranjan kaur
Petitioner
Versus
Joint Director Development (IRD) Punjab and others
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH
Present: Mr. K.S.Dhanora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. N.K.Verma, Sr.DAG, Punjab.
Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.
1. Challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the orders dated 5.6.1993 and 23.8.1993 passed by District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Jalandhar (DDPO) and Joint Development Commissioner (IRD), Punjab, Annexures P.4 and P.5 respectively being without jurisdiction, and against the principles of natural justice.
2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the petition, may be noticed. The petitioner Singh Gurbax 2013.09.24 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.10831 of 1993 2 was in possession of land bearing Khasra Nos.98 (73-18), 99(0-4), 100(1-11) 101, 102, 103 situated in Village Lidhar Khurd, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar measuring 75 kanals 8 marlas. The said land was purchased by the petitioner alongwith her sons Ajit Singh and Nirmal Singh from Kewal Krishan in the year 1983 and she was in cultivating possession of the same since then. In May 1986, the Gram Panchayat moved an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") on the ground that since Kewal Krishan and his predecessor-in- interest were saunjidars so they did not have any right to sell the property in dispute and now after the sale, the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant of the said property and as such she was entitled to be ejected from the land in dispute. The petitioner appeared before the authorities and raised objections regarding the question of title and possession. The Gram Panchayat failed to produce any evidence and ultimately the case was dismissed in default on 30.7.1987. Aggrieved by the order, the Gram Panchayat filed appeal before respondent No.1 which was allowed vide order 25.4.1989 and the case was remanded back to respondent No.2 to decide it after hearing the parties afresh. Thereafter, the case was adjourned on several dates but no evidence was produced by the petitioner herein regarding ownership of the land in dispute. On 25.8.1992, the counsel for the petitioner could not appear and ex parte order was passed. The petitioner moved an application for setting aside the said ex parte order. Vide order dated 5.6.1993, Annexure P.4, respondent Singh Gurbax 2013.09.24 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.10831 of 1993 3 No.2 rejected the application for setting aside the ex parte order and gave a direction that the petitioner alongwith her sons be ejected from the land in dispute. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order was dismissed by respondent No.1 vide order dated 23.8.1993, Annexure P.5 impugned herein. Hence the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and, therefore, the order passed by the DDPO was bad in law. It was also urged that respondent No.1 as an appellate authority had dismissed the appeal in limine and had, thus, erred and exceeded its jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had purchased property falling in Khasra Nos.98 (73-13), 99(0-4) and 100(1-11) from Kewal Krishan son of Mathra Dass son of Satam Rai through a registered sale deed and, therefore, the petitioner being bonafide purchaser could not be evicted from the land in dispute.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Gram Panchayat submitted that vide Annexure P.2, Jamabandi for the year 1966-67, appended by the petitioner, the Gram Panchayat is shown to be the owner of property in dispute bearing Khasra Nos.98 (73-13), 99(0-4) and 100(1-11) in respect of which petition under Section 7 (2) of the Act had been filed. In such circumstances, even if the land was purchased by the petitioner from Kewal Kirishan who was not the owner of the suit land, would not make her owner of the land in dispute. It was submitted that the petitioner had appeared before respondent No.2 and had filed written statement as has been Singh Gurbax 2013.09.24 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.10831 of 1993 4 noticed in the order dated 5.6.1993, Annexure P.4 and had failed to produce any evidence in her favour. The petitioner alongwith her sons were proceeded ex parte on 8.10.1991. They moved an application for setting aside the said ex parte order and the same was set aside on 19.12.1991 by the DDPO. In such circumstances, it could not be said that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Further, the appellate authority noticed that inspite of grant of opportunity to the petitioner to establish her ownership, she failed to produce any evidence or proof. Thus, she was in unauthorised possession of the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat. Reliance was also placed upon decision of the Apex Court in Jagpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(1) RCR (Civil) 912 wherein the Apex Court had deprecated the allotment of Gram Sabha land to private persons and commercial enterprises on payment of some money and directions were issued to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of Gram Panchayat.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to demonstrate that Kewal Krishan was the owner of land bearing Khasra Nos.98 (73-13), 99(0-4) and 100(1-11) as per Jamabandis Annexures P.1 and P.2. The Gram Panchayat has been shown to be the owner as described in the Jamabandis for the years 1944-45 and 1966-67. It has been recorded by the authorities below that inspite of Singh Gurbax 2013.09.24 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.10831 of 1993 5 opportunity having been granted to the petitioner, she had failed to establish her ownership of the aforesaid land. Once that was so, the petitioner would be termed to be in unauthorised possession and thus, had been rightly ordered to be evicted.
7. In view of the above, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Mittal)
Judge
September 04, 2013 (Jaspal Singh)
'gs' Judge
Singh Gurbax
2013.09.24 14:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh