Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 410 (PNJ)

Kamrudin v. State of Haryana

2001-04-04

JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, N.K.SUD

body2001
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioner prays that respondents No. 1 and 2 be directed to evict respondents No. 3 to 5 from the land in dispute. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed. 2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. He alleged that respondents No. 3 to 5 were in unauthorised occupation of land bearing Khasra No. 15/26 in Khewat No. 176. This application was allowed by the Assistant Collector vide order dated September 24, 1999. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order, respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Collector. Vide order dated January 13, 2000 the Collector held that prima facie the "appellant has constructed his house on north of the disputed land. From it, the illegal possession by him is clearly evident". Thus, the appeal was dismissed. The third respondent challenged the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector, through C.W.P. No. 5938 of 2000 filed in this Court. It was stated before the Bench by the Counsel for the petitioner that the Panchayat had recommended to the Government that the value of the land in dispute on which the house had been constructed be assessed and permission to sell it be given. Thus, the petition was not pressed. While disposing of the writ petition the Bench had observed that "till a final decision is taken by the Government on the matter, the petitioner (now respondent No. 3) shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute." 3. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner sought a review of the direction given by the Bench. This review application was dismissed vide order dated January 8, 2001. Having failed before the Bench, the petitioner has now approached this Court through the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Sachin Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the land in dispute had been reserved for use by the Kumhar Community. Since the respondents had encroached upon it, he had filed a petition under Section 7 of the Act. This petition having been allowed, the authorities are not entitled to allot it to respondent No. 3. 4. Mr. Sachin Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the land in dispute had been reserved for use by the Kumhar Community. Since the respondents had encroached upon it, he had filed a petition under Section 7 of the Act. This petition having been allowed, the authorities are not entitled to allot it to respondent No. 3. He further contends that the petitioner should be associated with the proceedings regarding allotment of land to the said respondent. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was a party in C. W. P. No. 5938 of 2000 in which the aforementioned direction had been given. Still further, it appears that even the factual basis on which the petitioner asserts his claim is non- existent. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the land was reserved for use by the Kumhar Community. However, in the petition it has been specifically mentioned that at the time of consolidation the land was reserved for use as a public thoroughfare. Thus, the land was never reserved for use by any community. Resultantly, the claim made on the basis of the alleged reservation cannot be sustained. Once it is found that the land had not been reserved, the petitioner has no cause for grievance. 6. Mr. Mittal submits that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to adduce the relevant facts before the appropriate authority before any decision regarding allotment of land to respondent No. 3 is taken. We are unable to accept this plea. Admittedly, the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat. The said Panchayat has recommended the case of the third respondent for allotment of land to him at the market value. This recommendation has been made in view of the fact that he has already constructed his house on the land. Even if it is assumed that the construction was raised in the year 1999 as is alleged by the counsel for the petitioner, the fact remains that the owner of the land has expressed its willingness to transfer it for money. In the transaction between the owner and the buyer, the petitioner has no cause to interfere. 7. Mr. Mittal contends that in the Jamabandi an entry to the effect that the Kumhar Community is using the land exists. No such record has been produced before us. In the transaction between the owner and the buyer, the petitioner has no cause to interfere. 7. Mr. Mittal contends that in the Jamabandi an entry to the effect that the Kumhar Community is using the land exists. No such record has been produced before us. Even if it is assumed that such an entry exists, it is admitted that the land belongs to the Panchayat. That being so, the petitioner may have merely encroached upon It. His possession is in no way better than that of respondent No. 3. Still further, keeping in view the fact that respondent No. 3 has constructed a house on the land, the plea of the petitioner that he was in possession appears to be unfounded. 8. No other point has been raised. 9. In view of the above we find no merit in this petition. It is consequently, dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.