DULI CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 28.1.1982 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Nun, order dated 29.10.1984 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Collector, Gurgaon and order dated 31.1.1986 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, by which suit filed by the petitioners under Section 13A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to Haryana, (for short 'the Act' has been dismissed. In short, petitioners filed suit under Section 13A of the Act, alleging that petitioner No. 1 is in possession of a house, open courtyard, gitwar marked by letters 'ABCD', 'EFGH' & 'MNOP' in red colour and petitioner No. 2 is in possession of a house and Nohra marked by letters 'HJKL' & 'POR' shown in red colour, situated in Khewat No. 81, Khata No. 112, comprising in Killa No. 60, Village Manuwas of Tehsil Nuh, District Gurgaon, to which the Gram Panchayat has no concern and it does not come in the definition of Shamilat deh provided under Section 2(g) of the Act. After completion of the pleadings, issues were framed and both the parties led their respective evidence but the suit was dismissed in respect of the other land except for two pucca houses. The order dated 28.1.1982 (Annexure P-4) of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Nuh, was further upheld by the Collector vide its order dated 29.10.1984 (Annexure P-5) and the Commissioner vide its order dated 31.1.1986 (Annexure P-6).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the property in dispute falls in Khasra No. 60, measuring 18 kanals 13 marlas, as per jamabandi for the year 1961-62 (Annexure P-2), and is recorded as Gair Mumkin Abadi but in the column of ownership, it is recorded in the name of Panchayat deh, which is patently illegal as Section 2(g)(vi) of the Act provides that if the land lies outside the abadi deh and is being used as gitwar, bara, manure pit, house or for cottage industry, immediately before the commencement of the Act, it would not be included within the definition of Shamilat deh. It is further submitted that Section 2(g)(vi) of the Act, substituted by Haryana Act No. 2 of 1981 was in operation when the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Nuh, passed the impugned order (Annexure P-4) on 4.5.1982. It is also argued that the petitioners had filed suit under Section 13A of the Act for seeking declaration of his right and title in the land in dispute on the ground that it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat being Shamilat deh but the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Nuh, has committed a patent error by ordering eviction, which could only be done on an application filed under Section 7 of the Act.

(3.) No-One has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.