Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardayal Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 December, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13532 OF 2010 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 19, 2012
Hardayal Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.4 to 6.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
42 kanals 2 marlas land situated in Village Sarola, District Kaithal was purchased in restricted auction reserved for members of Scheduled Caste by predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, namely, Sh.Arjun Ram, who gave a highest bid for `50,000/-. As per the requirement of the rules, he deposited an amount of `6750/- on the spot. The sale thereafter was confirmed by Settlement Officer on 9.11.1982. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was required to deposit the remaining amount in 15 half CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13532 OF 2010 :{ 2 }:
yearly instalments. He, however, was not able to deposit the remaining amount. Later he got permission to deposit sum of `10020/- and he, thus, in total has deposited a sum of `16,770/- till now.
The sale by way of auction was challenged by the Gram Panchayat by filing Civi Writ Petition No.4575 of 1983. As per the petitioner, the matter remained pending being subjudice. The petitioner pleads that perhaps because of this reason, his predecessor-in-interest did not deposit the instalments. The auction purchaser died in the year 2003. His heirs were under the impression that total instalment had been deposited.
Before his death, an application was filed before the Settlement Officer on 15.11.1989, which contained a remark "presented personally" and on this application, he was allowed to deposit half of the amount of the over due instalments before 31.12.1989 and balance by 31.1.1990. It is, however, conceded that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was not able to comply with the direction to deposit the amount. Tehsildar (Sales) vide his order dated 24.9.1990, forfeited the amount `16,770/- deposited by the auction purchaser and resumed the land. The grievance of the petitioner is that that Tehsildar (Sales), while passing this order, did not issue any notice to the auction purchaser or to the petitioner and simply relied upon the report regarding non-deposit of the instalments due.
The petitioner avers that controversy about vesting of the land forming part of shamlat land, being the evacuee share and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13532 OF 2010 :{ 3 }:
whether such evacuee share would vest in the Gram Panchayat, ultimately was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur Vs. Malwinder Singh and others, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1394. It is held in this case that the evacuee share in the shamlat land vest in the Gram Panchayat and not in the Rehabilitation Department. This position has resulted in spate of litigation as Rehabilitation Department had transferred lot of land from shamlat, treating it to be an evacuee property by way of auction or allotment. Ultimately, the State Government had to amend the provisions of Section 2 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act, by inserting Clause 2(ii)(a) in clause (g) and also substituted sub- Section (ii) in Section 3 of the Act, where it was provided that the land has been excluded from the operation of clause (g) of Section 2.
The above amendment was challenged by various Gram Panchayats. This controversy, thus, has been recently decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 7.4.2010 and the amendment made in the year 1996 has been upheld.
After making mention to this background, the petitioner has made an attempt to take advantage thereof. It is stated that the State Government in order to help the members of the Scheduled caste, to whom the land was auctioned by way of restricted auction, has issued instructions regarding resumption of the land and forfeiture of the deposited amount, where auction purchaser had not been able to make the payment. Instructions dated 15.10.1970, issued in this regard, are annexed with the petition as Annexure P-4. This annexure only makes an enabling procedure to present an CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13532 OF 2010 :{ 4 }:
application before Tehsildar instead of filing an appeal before Settlement Commissioner and Tehsildar is obligated to send this application to Settlement Commissioner. Nothing more is provided in these instructions.
On 11.3.1981, the Government had issued another instructions (Annexure P-5) providing for giving notice to the earlier auction purchaser instead of forfeiting the amount and resuming the land. These instructions provide that while putting the land for re- auction, earlier auction purchaser may be served with a notice about the date of re-auction to ascertain if he wished to deposit the amount before the date of re-auction in those cases where the amount deposited by him had been forfeited. The petitioner, in this background, pleads that due to pendency of dispute in regard to nature and title of property, instalments became due not being deposited and the Settlement Commissioner alone could order, making of payment of balance price of such property disposed of by way of auction. The petitioner being not aware of the non-deposit, filed a petition under Rule 18 of the Rules before the Settlement Commissioner, who alone alongwith the State Government would competently grant permission to deposit the over due instalments. Respondent No.2 has, however, rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that order dated 15.11.1989 has not been complied with. The petitioner complains that he has ignored the relevant rules while taking this view. The petitioner accordingly has approached this Court against the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on various grounds.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13532 OF 2010 :{ 5 }:
The whole basis of the claim set up by the petitioner seems to be the pendency of litigation where the Gram Panchayat had filed a writ petition. The petitioner would claim that he or his predecessor-in-interest could not deposit the amount due to dispute of title being pending between the Gram Panchayat and the Rehabilitation Department.
I had called for the record of Civil Writ Petition No.4575 of 1983, which is advanced as basis for not depositing the amount by the petitioner. The Court in this case had issued notice of motion on 23.9.1983. The auction was allowed to take place but sale was not to be confirmed as per the interim order passed. Ultimately, this writ petition was allowed on 3.9.1985 on the basis of judgement rendered in Gram Panchayat, Jamalpur's case (Supra). The Court accordingly restrained the authorities from divesting the petitioner-
Gram Panchayat of its right in the shamlat land. This aspect is immaterial in this case. In subsequent development, as stated in the petition, the authorities had allowed the petitioner to deposit the instalment, which the petitioner failed to do and take advantage of the concession shown to him.
No instalment was paid by the petitioner w.e.f. 15.6.1985 to 15.6.1989. The writ petition was allowed in the year 1985. In 1989, the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, had accepted the application of the petitioner, requiring him to deposit half of the amount by 31.12.1989 and remaining amount by 31.1.1990. This obviously was in terms of the instructions dated 11.3.1981 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner failed to avail the advantage of this order. The CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13532 OF 2010 :{ 6 }:
amount deposited by the petitioner was forfeited on 24.9.1990 and the land was resumed.
Against this order passed in 1990, the petitioner had moved a miscellaneous application in the year 2005-06. The petitioner has not shown any justification in not depositing the instalments, which were due, despite having been given opportunity to do so. At this late stage, the petitioner can not seek benefit of these instructions as he failed to deposit the amount, when he was extended the benefit of these very instructions. Such a prayer could have been made in the year 1990, which he did and could have pursued when the order forfeiting the amount deposited by him was passed and the auction was set-aside. The petitioner has allowed this order to remain so long that equities have majorly changed and at this stage, it will be too late and unfair to restore the auction, which stands cancelled 22 years ago and against which no timely action is taken. I do not see any merit in the writ petition or the plea raised by the petitioner.
The writ petition, being without any merit, is accordingly dismissed.
December 19, 2012 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE