Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharamvir vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 12 November, 2014
Bench: Surya Kant, Shekher Dhawan
LPA No.1858 of 2014 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.1858 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of decision:- 12.11.2014.
Dharamvir
......Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEKHER DHAWAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellants.
****
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
1. This Letters Patent Appeal impugns the order dated 25.09.2014 whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the appellant's writ petition raising the following two issues:-
(i) The orders dated 29.04.2004 and 08.05.2009 passed by Collector Narwana, and Commissioner, Hisar Division, respectively be quashed;
(ii)The land in dispute be allotted to the appellant as per Government instructions dated 03.11.1987.
2. The learned Single Judge has observed with reference to the challenge laid to the two orders referred to above, SANDEEP SETHI 2014.11.26 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No.1858 of 2014 (O&M) -2- that the appellant cannot be permitted to re-agitate the matter as those orders have already been upheld by this Court in the previous round of litigation. As regard to the second relief, the learned Single Judge has viewed that the instructions relied upon by the appellant are inapplicable in the case in hand.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record.
4. The undisputed facts are that land measuring 21 kanal 7 marla was taken by the appellant on lease for a period of one year in an open auction held on 27.04.1968. On expiry of the lease period, the land was again auctioned and the appellant being the highest bidder took the same for the year 1970-71.
5. The appellant was, however, unsuccessful in the auction held for the year 1971-72 and again for 1972-73. Strangely, the appellant also refused to vacate the possession and forcibly cultivated the land till the year 1973-74.
6. The land was re-auctioned in the year 1975-76 but the appellant refused to hand over its possession to the highest bidder. It was in this backdrop that an eviction petition under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Evicton and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 was filed against him on 15.08.1981. The Collector dismissed the ejectment application filed by respondent No.4 vide order dated 27.04.1982 and the land was ordered to be allotted to the appellant. The said order was upheld by the Appellate Authority also. State of SANDEEP SETHI 2014.11.26 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No.1858 of 2014 (O&M) -3- Haryana successfully challenged these orders in a writ petition which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2004 and the matter was remitted to the Collector for fresh adjudication of the ejectment application filed by respondent No.4. The appellant's Letters Patent Appeal No.22 of 2004 against the order of the learned Single Judge was also dismissed on 01.02.2010 though with liberty to him to seek allotment of the land in accordance with Government policy. The appellant, meanwhile, raised the claim for allotment but that was turned down firstly by the Collector, Narwana vide order dated 29.04.2004 and thereafter, by the Appellate Authority, namely, the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar vide order dated 08.05.2009.
7. The above mentioned orders were challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge who too has rejected his claim.
8. Assuming that the legality of these orders has not attained finality in the earlier round of litigation, the solitary question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to seek allotment of the subject land as a matter of right in terms of the purported Government policy dated 03.11.1987 (Annexure P-5)?
9. We have gone through the contents of the aforesaid policy with the able assistance of learned counsel. It stands crystallized from the opening paragraph of the letter that it is not a uniform policy decision in respect of all the lands which are unauthorizedly occupied by persons belonging to Scheduled Castes SANDEEP SETHI 2014.11.26 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No.1858 of 2014 (O&M) -4- Category. In fact, the aforesaid letter is an administrative decision to meet with a particular situation faced by the State Government in village Birthedari, District Jind and of another village in District Karnal. In those two villages, the land measuring 649 acre 4 kanal and 124 marla, respectively, was given on lease-hold basis to a group of persons belonging to Vimukat Jatis community. The object behind giving that land was social reformation and to rehabilitate and bring the Lessees to the main stream of society as most of the male members were found involved in criminal or anti-social activities. Having found that most of those families had settled down that the State Government decided to allot the land at concessional rate so that the Lessees continue to earn their livelihood through lawful means and were not forced to revert back to unlawful activities. This cannot be taken as a policy decision to be applied uniformly throughout the State.
10. Having held so, we cannot accept the second relief sought by the appellant. Resultantly, no case to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge is made out. As regards the penalty and compounding interest imposed on the appellant, it appears to us that the matter requires sympathetic re-consideration by the Authorities. We, thus, grant liberty to the appellant to represent the Collector in this regard, who shall dispassionately consider the appellant's request for the reduction of penalty and compounding interest. We have no reason to doubt that the SANDEEP SETHI 2014.11.26 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No.1858 of 2014 (O&M) -5- Authorities will show their full compassion and minimize the hardship caused to the appellant in this regard.
11. Ordered accordingly. Dasti.
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE (SHEKHER DHAWAN) JUDGE November 12, 2014.
sandeep sethi SANDEEP SETHI 2014.11.26 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document