Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1205 (PNJ)

Lajja Ram v. State of Haryana

2013-09-06

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, JASBIR SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT : Jasbir Singh, J. This order will dispose of three writ petitions viz. Civil Writ Petitions No. 9436 of 2008 titled as "Lajja Ram and Others v. State of Haryana and Others", No. 9667 of 2008 titled as "Fakir Chand and Others v. State of Haryana and Others" and No. 9687 of 2008 titled as "Ishwar Chand and Others v. State of Haryana and Others", as the common question of law and facts are involved therein. For disposal, facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 9436 of 2008. 2. Petitioners in this writ petition have laid challenge to an order dated 8.10.2002 (Annexure P8) vide which they were ordered to be ejected from land falling in khasra No. 13//17/2 measuring 2 kanals 4 marlas. Further challenge has been laid to orders dated 12.9.2007 and 21.4.2008 (Annexures P9 & P11), passed in appeal and revision, respectively. It is grievance of counsel for the petitioners that despite availability of many documents on record, those were not discussed by the Collector, Yamuna Nagar and the same mistake was repeated by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana when dismissing their appeal and revision. Whereas to the contrary, counsel for the respondents has supported the above orders passed by the Courts below. 3. As per facts on record, Gram Panchayat-respondent No.4 filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") for ejectment of the petitioners from the land in dispute. Petitioners raised question of title. The proceedings were converted into a title suit under Section 13A of the Act. Vide order dated 7.5.1999, Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Yamuna Nagar ordered that let the petitioners file an application for getting the question of title decided, whereupon they filed an application under Section 13A of the Act alleging that they have become owner of the land in dispute on account of their long standing possession. Both the parties were given opportunities to lead evidence. The petitioners brought on record many documents, detail of which is reflected in the order passed by the Collector. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- "The plaintiffs in their evidence have got recorded the statements of Shri Lajja Ram plaintiff and Shri Kabul Chand son of Shri Babu Ram. Both the parties were given opportunities to lead evidence. The petitioners brought on record many documents, detail of which is reflected in the order passed by the Collector. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- "The plaintiffs in their evidence have got recorded the statements of Shri Lajja Ram plaintiff and Shri Kabul Chand son of Shri Babu Ram. Shri Lajja Ram in his statement clearly deposed that the land in dispute is 02 kanals 04 marlas, upon which their possession is continued prior to 1922-23. The Gram Panchayat has never given this land either on lease or Batai. Previously, Agya Ram and Kali Ram were the owners of this land who had died and the plaintiffs are their heirs. In the revenue record in column of ownership the name of Panchayat is wrongly continued. In his evidence, he produced the Jamabandi 1954-55 as Ex.P1 and Hindi version thereof as Mark-A, Copy of Naksha Hakdar Ex.P2 and its Hindi version Mark-A, copy of Khatoni Istemal Ex.P3 and its Hindi version Mark-A3, copy of jamabandi for the year 1936- 37 Ex.P4 and its Hindi version Mark-A4, copy of jamabandi for the year 1944-45 Ex.P5 and its Hindi version Mark-A5. During his cross-examination he has admitted that it is correct that in the revenue record in the column of ownership, Panchayat Deh is recorded. In the Shamlat Deh land I have 01 kanal 08 marlas share. This share has been given to us during the consolidation. It is incorrect that he is in illegal possession of the land for the last 8-10 years. Shri Kabul Chand, retired Naib Tehsildar, resident of village Chhachhrauli has got recorded his statement and had seen the copies of Ex.P1 to Ex.P5, the Hindi version thereof has been prepared by him which is Mark-A1 to A5 which is correct." 4. It was specifically stated by the petitioners that their possession relates back to the year 1922-23. To support that contention, copy of jamabandi for the year 1954-55 was placed on record. Copies of Naqsha Haqdarwar and Khatauni Istemal were also brought on record to show that their entitlement, being in possession of the land, assessed during consolidation proceedings and thereafter the land was allotted to them. Copy of jamabandi for the year 1936-37 was also brought on record to show their possession. Copies of Naqsha Haqdarwar and Khatauni Istemal were also brought on record to show that their entitlement, being in possession of the land, assessed during consolidation proceedings and thereafter the land was allotted to them. Copy of jamabandi for the year 1936-37 was also brought on record to show their possession. The Collector, without making reference to all these documents, by simply relying upon jamabandis for the years 1944-45 and 1954-55, came to a conclusion that possession of the petitioners do not relate back to the year 1922-23 as alleged. It was further opined that the petitioners have failed to prove their possession 12 years prior to 26.1.1950. The above issue was decided as follows:- "1. Whether the cultivating possession of the plaintiffs is continued over the land in dispute 12 years prior to 1950 and whether they had become the owners of the land in dispute? OPP. The onus to prove this issue was upon the shoulder of the plaintiffs. In this regard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs drew my attention towards the Jamabandi for the year 1944-45 and 1954-55 to show that the cultivating possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute is 12 years prior to the year 1950. But the plaintiffs have failed to produce this proof on the record as to whether during the consolidation of holdings, the old numbers were converted into the new khasra numbers. Besides, the plaintiffs had also failed to prove on the record their share in the Shamlat land. Therefore, on this basis the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute 12 years prior to the year 1950 has not been proved and neither they have been proved the owners of the land in dispute. On the basis of the record available on the file and Jamabandi, the land in dispute is the ownership of Panchayat Deh. Therefore, this issue is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the respondents." 5. Despite availability of large number of documents, it was said that there is nothing on record to show that the land was under cultivation. Simply by stating that in the jamabandi, possession of the petitioners is shown as unauthorized occupants, their claim was rejected. At the end, it was not stated as to under which provision of Section 2(g) of the Act, the land would vest in the Gram Panchayat. Simply by stating that in the jamabandi, possession of the petitioners is shown as unauthorized occupants, their claim was rejected. At the end, it was not stated as to under which provision of Section 2(g) of the Act, the land would vest in the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners went in appeal which was dismissed. They approached the Financial Commissioner Haryana and vide order dated 25.7.2006, the revision was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, for fresh appraisal. The above officer also failed to discuss the evidence on record. The order was passed on 12.9.2007 in a stereo-typed manner, simply by making reference to jamabandis for the years 1954-55 and 1996-97, it was observed that Gram Panchayat was owner of the land in dispute, as the petitioners have failed to prove that they were in possession in the land in dispute 12 years prior to 26.1.1950. The mistake was further perpetuated by the Financial Commissioner when revision petition was dismissed on 21.4.2008. 6. We have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The petitioners have produced on record copy of jamabandi for the year 1920-21 to show their possession, through their predecessors in-interest, in the land in dispute. In khewat No. 7 & khatauni No. 59, predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners were shown in possession of khasra Nos. 114 & 133 total measuring 1 bigha & 16 biswas. Nature of the land was shown as Barani. There is nothing on record to show that the land in dispute was not under cultivation. Same entry was repeated in the jamabandi for the year 1936-37. These documents were available on record of the trial Court. It was also so reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1944-45. To show that right of the petitioners, to get the land allotted was considered by the Consolidation Authorities, reference was made to Naqsha Haqdarwar (Annexure P5) wherein against possessory rights of the petitioners, they were held entitled to allotment of land measuring 4 Kanals 17 Marlas. 7. Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are claiming ownership only with regard to land measuring 2 kanals 4 marlas. By making reference to document (Annexure P6) it is stated that the land under their possession was not reserved for any common purpose. 7. Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are claiming ownership only with regard to land measuring 2 kanals 4 marlas. By making reference to document (Annexure P6) it is stated that the land under their possession was not reserved for any common purpose. It is also proved on record that entry was changed from the name of the owners in favour of Gram Panchayat on the basis of notification dated 11.2.1992 issued under the provisions of the Act. In that regard, reference has been made to a document Annexure P7. Further reference has been made to a document Annexure P7/A, to show that mutation entries were again changed from the name of Gram Panchayat to that of Shamlat Deh vide mutation dated 20.3.2006, as validity of that notification was not upheld by this Court. 8. The orders passed by the Collectors shows non-application of mind. None of the documents mentioned above, except jamabandi for the year 1954-55, were considered when order was passed. The petitioners have tentatively proved before us that they, through their predecessors-in-interest, were in possession much prior to the enforcement of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 (in short "1953 Act"). As per law, when deciding question of title between the parties, the Quasi Judicial Authorities are supposed to look into evidence on record, analyze it and to see its effect on the rights of the parties. To discard evidence on record, reasons are to be given. In present case, despite availability of documents on record, those were not discussed at all. 9. Under the circumstances, these orders cannot be sustained. In view of the fact mentioned above, all the three writ petitions are allowed. Impugned orders dated 8.10.2002 (Annexure P8), 12.9.2007 (Annexure P9) and 21.4.2008 (Annexure P11) are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Collector at Yamuna Nagar to decide lis between the parties afresh. He is directed to frame issues in terms of the pleadings of the parties and then after discussing evidence on record, pass a speaking order. If any of the parties wish to submit their additional pleadings on file, two opportunities be granted to each of the parties. The officer concerned is directed to finally decide the matter within nine months from the date the parties put in appearance before him. Parties are directed to appear before the Collector, Yamuna Nagar on 10.10.2013.