Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kirpal Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 23 March, 2011
Author: Ajai Lamba
Bench: Ajai Lamba
CWP No.7582 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
*****
CWP No.7582 of 2010
Date of Decision: 23.03.2011
Kirpal Singh and Ors.
... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and Ors.
... Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
Present: Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. SS Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana,
for respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr. SS Dalal, Advocate,
for respondent No.5.
*****
AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 18th October, 2004 (Annexure P-3) passed by Collector, District Hisar in suit filed under Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to Haryana (for short, 'the Act').
2. The petitioners filed a suit under Section 13-A of the Act to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit land. The suit has been dismissed and hence decided in favour of the Gram Panchayat, Singhar, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar. The petitioners carried an appeal before Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar that has been dismissed vide the other impugned order CWP No.7582 of 2010 -2- dated 24th September, 2008 (Annexure P-4). The petitioners carried revision before the Financial Commissioner, which has been dismissed vide order dated 2nd December, 2009 (Annexure P-5).
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the action has been taken against the petitioners on the strength of Annexure P-1 that is stated to be a compromise. Learned counsel contends that no such action could have been taken on the basis of Annexure P-1.
4. On the second count, learned counsel argued that the petitioners and, earlier to that, their predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the land for the last 80-90 years. Learned counsel, however, has not drawn the attention of this Court towards any material indicating possession over the land for a long period, that could be translated into legal evidence.
5. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. Annexure P-1 are proceedings/resolution of Gram Panchayat, Singhar, passed in presence of elder members of the Gram Sabha, indicating that there is a Chowk in the village i.e. in Panchayat land. The details of the Chowk have been given. It has been stated that the document has been signed by uncle of the petitioners.
7. Notice (Annexure P-2) was issued by Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Hansi to the father of the petitioners saying that the encroachment be removed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed suit under Section 13-A of the Act, that has been dismissed. In such circumstances, it cannot be pleaded that action has been taken in view of document Annexure P-1.
8. On a perusal of the impugned orders, I find that the petitioners CWP No.7582 of 2010 -3- have not placed on record any evidence to substantiate their possessory or ownership title. In such circumstances, no factual or legal error can be traced in the impugned orders.
10. No ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is made out.
11. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
MARCH 23, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Rajan JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?