PREM MOHAN KALRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions have been preferred by the present petitioner for the same relief on identical grounds and are being disposed of by this common order. Facts leading to the filing of these petitions are that the petitioner is owner in possession of land measuring 10 bighas and 17 biswas comprised in Khewat Nos. 247 to 249 in Village Anangpur, Tehsil and District Faridabad.

(2.) The petitioner purchased the aforesaid land vide two sale deeds dated 12.10.1989. The first sale deed is in respect of land measuring 3 bighas and 4 biswas executed by one Mahipal Singh son of Het Ram resident of Anangpur Tehsil and District Faridabad whereas the second sale deed is in respect of land measuring 7 bighas and 13 biswas executed by one Vipan Marwah son of Tilak Raj resident of E-231, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. These two sale deeds are placed on record as Annexures P- 1 and P-2. The petitioner claims to have taken possession of the property under sale from the vendors. Two mutations bearing Nos.4009 and 4010 were also sanctioned by the competent authority on 18.10.1989 (Annexures P-3 and P-4). It is alleged that after taking over the possession of the land in question, including the cottage, cow huts, horse huts, toilets, servant room, store room etc., the petitioner renovated the main building as well as the kitchen and the change room and also got the boundary wall constructed. The petitioner applied for change of land use from agriculture to residential purpose to the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad (respondent no.2). An agreement in form of CLU-III was executed dated 4.12.1995 by charging the composition fee of Rs.1,22,924/-. Copy of the composition order has been placed on record as Annexure P-6. The aforesaid composition order was followed by another composition order dated 5.12.1995 (Annexure P-7). The petitioner has also placed on record receipts of payment in the form of composition charges of Rs.1,22,924/- and Rs.84,400/-. After compounding, the Municipal Corporation also sanctioned the plan on 5.12.1995. The sanctioned plan is also placed on record as Annexure P-10. It is stated that thereafter respondent no.2 issued a show cause notice dated 26.6.1996 (Annexure P-11) regarding cancellation of permission for change of land use on the ground that the ownership documents submitted by the petitioner were not proper, in view of Section 2 (g) of the Punjab Village Common Land Act, 1961. The petitioner was asked to appear in person in the office of respondent no.2 on 28.10.1999 at 3.00 p.m. in case he is willing to be heard. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 28.10.1999 to the show cause notice through his advocate. It is stated that after the reply was submitted by the petitioner to respondent no.2, further proceedings on the show cause notice were deferred. A communication dated 2.2.2000 from respondent no.2 to the petitioner in this regard has been placed on record as Annexure P-13. From the perusal of this communication, it appears that in view of the document submitted by the petitioner regarding composition of the unauthorized construction and pendency of RSA No.1936 of 1987, further action on show cause notice has been deferred. It is alleged that the petitioner applied to the Consolidation Officer for correction of Khasra Girdawari on 5.4.1996. On this application of the petitioner, AC-II, Gurgaon directed the kanungo Consolidation vide his letter dated 5.6.96 to inspect the spot and after verifying the area and Khasra Number regarding the possession of the petitioner, spot inspection report be submitted to him (Annexure P-15). Kanungo carried out the spot inspection in presence of Halqa Patwari, Lamberdar, the writ petitioner, one Uday Chand, MLA on behalf of Municipal Corporation and some other persons and submitted his report certifying that in land measuring 10 Bigha 17 Biswa, there are pucca boundary wall, one Gobar plant, one kothi, kitchen, dining hall, staff room, power house i.e. Generator Room, store, basement, Tennis Court, Fruit Trees. The report also certifies the possession of the petitioner as is evident from Annexure P-17. The petitioner has also relied upon a report of the Halqa Patwari to the Consolidation Officer certifying the possession of the petitioner as owner in Khasra No.58 measuring 10 Bighas and 17 Biswas. In this report, it has also been mentioned that the petitioner has raised loan of Rs.27,50,000/- from PNB Housing Finance (Annexure P-18). Patwari's report also mentions about construction of six feet long pucca boundary wall alongwith one Gobar gas plant and presence of cattle like cows, dogs, ducks, hens etc. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 15.7.2003, officials of respondents accompanied by police personnel about 200 in numbers demolished the part of the construction of the petitioner illegally and unlawfully. The first writ petition CWP No.11724 of 2003 has been filed in respect of the demolition of the construction of the petitioner. In this writ petition, the petitioner claimed following reliefs:-

(3.) This writ petition was admitted to hearing vide order dated 25.10.2005. It is alleged that the petitioner apprehended further illegal action on the part of the respondents and thus issued a notice dated 12.12.2003 to the respondents no.2 and 3 through his counsel requesting them that if any notice in future is to be served upon the petitioner, the same may be served through his counsel who is duly authorized. The case of the petitioner is that even thereafter on 9.9.2006, respondent no.3 accompanied by respondents no.5 and 6 and about 100 police personnel alongwith staff came to the property of the petitioner at 11.00 a.m. and damaged the part of the boundary wall adjacent to the property of Shri Kartar Singh Duna, a Former Minister of Haryana Government and caused loss of Rs.5.00 lacs. It is submitted that the petitioner asked them to show any order of demolition or show cause notice, but the respondents have failed to show any such order. According to the petitioner, the entire exercise was illegal and without any authority of law. The petitioner obtained the assessment of the loss from the Architect valuer who has assessed the loss at Rs.5.00 lacs as damage caused to the boundary wall.