Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1775 (PNJ)

Ram Kumar. v. State Of Haryana & Ors.

2019-05-27

AVNEESH JHINGAN, JASWANT SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT Jaswant Singh, J. - Petitioner-Ram Kumar has filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus for directing the respondents to consider prayer of his brothers and himself, regarding selling of land to them, being their sole residential houses which have been constructed prior to 31.03.2000. 2. As per the learned Counsel representing petitioner, petitioner and his brothers are legal heirs of Lalji and can be accommodated under Section 5 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 read with Rule 12 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, especially Sub Rule (4) of Rule 12, whereby any house that has been constructed prior to 31.03.2000 can be protected subject to conditions mentioned therein. Thus, prayer has been made for protection of the said houses, qua which Gram Panchayat has won all the litigations that were initiated either by Lalji (father of petitioner) or Gram Panchayat for his eviction. 3. On going through the contents of writ petition, we had asked petitioner and all other persons who are Lrs of Lalji, to file their affidavits to the effect that they do not own any other residential house in the village nor are in unauthorized possession of any Panchayat/Shamlat land of the village vide our order dated 08.02.2019. 4. In compliance of the said order, all the Lrs i.e. Ram Kumar son of Lalji (petitioner), Raj Kumar son of Lalji and Sheela Devi widow of Kanwar Singh son of Lalji, had filed their individual affidavits vide CM No.3033 of 2019 stating that they do not own any other residential house in the village nor are in unauthorized possession of any Panchayat/hamlat land of the Village. 5. Thus, considering the said affidavits to be correct, we had issued formal notice to State of Haryana on 15.03.2019 only to the limited extent of right of petitioner for sale of land to him under Rule 12 of the Rules, 1964. The Deputy Commissioner, Son pat was further directed to take a final decision qua sale before the next date of hearing with regard to entitlement of petitioner for exchange-sale of land. 6. The Deputy Commissioner, Son pat was further directed to take a final decision qua sale before the next date of hearing with regard to entitlement of petitioner for exchange-sale of land. 6. In compliance of said order dated 15.03.2019, the Deputy Commissioner Sonepat had filed her reply by way of affidavit dated 08.05.2019, whereby it has been stated that petitioner and his brothers had misrepresented this Court, as they are having separate residential houses other than the one in question. It was also mentioned that the rooms were not constructed prior to 31.03.2000 and infact were constructed much later to the said date. As per the said affidavit, final decision has been takenvide order dated 4.5.2019 (Annexure R-1/2), whereby considering the facts of the case and on a detailed inquiry conducted by officials of the State by consulting the relevant records, the request for sale/exchange has been declined. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the reply filed by the State, order dated 04.05.2019 (R-1/2) as well as the contents of the writ petition along with affidavits submitted by them before this Court. After considering all the aspects of the instant case, we are of the view that instant petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. 8. It is evident that on our asking the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat had got conducted an inquiry on the entire issue and on detailed consideration, it has been found that all the Lrs of Lalji (including petitioner) have their separate residential houses, whose details have been mentioned in the order dated 04.05.2019 (R-1/2) from point no.1 to point no.7. Although, counsel for petitioner has tried to justify the affidavits filed by Lrs of Lalji by stating the other houses mentioned in the order dated 4.5.2019 belong to children of petitioner/brothers etc., but we are not at all impressed by the said argument, which is not only fallacious but runs contrary to our intention when we had tried to interfere in the matter solely on humanitarian grounds. We hasten to add here that the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat has filed her own affidavit and has passed a detailed order which is based upon due investigation done by the concerned officials from the record, including revenue record and thus, we have no reasons to doubt the reply filed by State. 9. We hasten to add here that the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat has filed her own affidavit and has passed a detailed order which is based upon due investigation done by the concerned officials from the record, including revenue record and thus, we have no reasons to doubt the reply filed by State. 9. Seen from another angle, Rule 12 of the 1964 Rules leave discretion with the Gram Panchayat and then the State Government to either sell the non-cultivable land Shamlat Land to unauthorized occupant or get him evicted. Once, the Gram Panchayat had made its intention clear by seeking eviction of Lalji Dass from the house in question, we find no reason in the facts and circumstances of the case to interfere further in such discretion exercised by Gram Panchayat. 10. Once that is so, it is evident that the contents of affidavits submitted before us by all the Lrs of Lalji (including petitioner's) are incorrect/misleading. Filing of false affidavits amounts to perjury and we were inclined to initiate suo-moto proceedings under Section 340 Cr.PC at one stage, however, we restrain ourselves to do so by taking a lenient view considering the background of petitioner and his brothers, who are villagers. 11. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed.