SURJEET Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated, 18.8.2004, 26.9.2005, 02.05.2007 and 06.08.2008, passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade Guhla, the Collector, Kaithal, the Commissioner, Ambala Division Ambala and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana respectively, holding that the petitioners have to right, title or interest in the land in dispute.

(2.) AFTER the order of ejectment, passed under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) attained finality, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 13 (A) of the Act, praying for a declaration that the land in dispute does not vest in the Gram Panchayat as it is recorded in the individual cultivating possession of the petitioners prior to 26.1.1950. In support of this plea, the petitioners placed reliance upon the jamabandi for the year 1945-46 (Annexure P-1) and the documents prepared during consolidation allotting new khasra numbers etc. The respondents controverted the pleadings by asserting that as the order of ejectment has attained finality, the petition should be dismissed. It was further asserted that even as per Annexure P-1, petitioners' predecessors were not in cultivating possession. The Collector, dismissed the application by holding that the petitioners have failed to establish their claim. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner respectively.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the finding recorded by the authorities below, that the petitioners have failed to connect the land in dispute with the land referred to in the jamabandi for the year 1945-46, does not suffer from any error. It is further submitted that jamabandi for the year 1945-46, records that a part of the land is a passage whereas the other land is Gair Mumkin, thereby putting aid to the petitioner argument that their predecessors were in self-cultivation of the land in dispute. It is argued that as the petitioners have failed to prove the ingredients of proviso (viii) to sub Section 2(g) of the Act, the writ petition should be dismissed.