Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhoj Raj vs State Of Haryana And Others on 4 September, 2013
Bench: Jasbir Singh, G.S. Sandhawalia
CWP No. 14526 of 2013 (O & M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 14526 of 2013 (O & M)
Date of Decision:- September 04, 2013
Bhoj Raj ..............PETITIONER(S)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ...........RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. S.S. Kharab, Advocate,
for respondent no. 3.
Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate,
for the applicant.
JASBIR SINGH, J. (Oral)
Father of the petitioner was in unauthorized possession of 5 kanals and 4 marlas of land. Gram Panchayat filed an application against him for ejectment under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), which was allowed on 11.07.1997. That order has become final. Despite that order having been passed, father of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner continued to be in unauthorized occupation of the land in dispute. Gram Panchayat filed an execution application, which was allowed on 03.03.2008. Petitioner was directed to vacate the land in dispute. That order was upheld in appeal. The petitioner's father came to this Court by filing CWP No. 4029 of 2010. The Gupta Shivani 2013.09.25 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 14526 of 2013 (O & M) 2 said writ petition was disposed of on noting averment of the father of the petitioner that his case for purchase of land under construction is under consideration. Directions were issued on 13.12.2011 to the competent authority to look into application for purchase of land and pass an appropriate order. In continuation to his earlier application, petitioner filed application for purchase of land on 31.12.2012. When it was not decided, he came to this Court by filing CWP No. 1134 of 2013, which was disposed of on 01.03.2013 directing Deputy Commissioner, Panipat to decide petitioner's representation within three months. In response to that order, the Deputy Commissioner, Panipat passed impugned order on 21.05.2013 (Annexure P-6) rejecting claim of the petitioner to purchase that land.
It is not in dispute that till today, petitioner is in possession of entire land out of which his father was ordered to be ejected way back in the year 1997. By dragging the Gram Panchayat in litigation in one way or the other, unauthorized possession has been continued for the last more than 15 years. Despite an execution application having been filed, land was not vacated. In a very clever manner, an application was filed to purchase land as per the provisions of Rule 12(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) (in short 'the Rules'). The said provision reads thus:-
"(4) The Gram Panchayat may with the prior approval of {the State Government}, sell its non-
cultivable land in shamilat deh to the inhabitants of the village who have constructed their houses on or before 31st March, 2000, not resulting in any obstruction to the traffic and passers-by, along with open space upto Gupta Shivani 2013.09.25 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 14526 of 2013 (O & M) 3 25% of the constructed area or an appurtenant area upto a maximum of 200 square yards at not less than collector rate."
It is provided that with prior approval of the State Government, the Gram Panchayat may sell its non-cultivable land to the inhabitants of the village who have constructed their houses on or before 31.03.2000. The said transfer shall not result into any obstruction to the traffic etc. When CWP No. 4029 of 2011 filed by the father of the petitioner was pending, vide order dated 24.01.2011, report was sought from the SDO (Civil) regarding situation at the spot to note whether construction raised by the petitioner is causing any inconvenience to the residents of the village or not. It was reported by the officer concerned that the land is owned by the Gram Panchayat and the petitioner had constructed one room in about 100 square yards of land. A small bathroom with open roof is also found at the spot in land measuring 20-30 square feet. It was also noticed that adjoining to the land in dispute, there is a village pond. The petitioner was found using the area for storing building material for commercial purposes. It was specifically reported that the petitioner owns one double storey brick house in the residential area of the village. It was further reported that disputed land was on the circular road of the village and on account of construction raised, inconvenience has been caused to the general public.
If that is so, we feel that orders passed by the authorities below in rejecting application of the petitioner to purchase the land is perfectly justified. In the order under challenge dated 21.05.2013, it was observed that as per the provisions of Rule 12(4) of the Rules, this land cannot be sold to the petitioner being a part of the village Chara. Gupta Shivani 2013.09.25 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 14526 of 2013 (O & M) 4
No infirmity has been shown in the order under challenge at the time of arguments.
Dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh)
Judge
04.09.2013 (G.S. Sandhawalia)
shivani Judge
Gupta Shivani
2013.09.25 12:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh