MANOHARI Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE PILI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 30.3.2009 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 5032 of 2009. THE appellants have asserted that their predecessors- in-interest were in possession of the land which was described in the revenue record as 'Jumla Mustarka Malkan'. According to the appellants, the land having not been utilized for any common purposes of the residents of the village continue to be in the nature of 'Jumla Mustarka Malkan' and would vest in the appellants. However, the case set up by the Gram Panchayat was that the land in dispute was owned by it as was patent from the revenue record as it was used for common purposes and that infact the appellants had unauthorizedly occupied the same. THE Gram Panchayat filed an ejectment application alleging that the land in dispute was exchanged with the Gram Panchayat but the appellants did not hand over the exchanged land to the Panchayat. THE aforesaid ejectment application was filed under Section of the Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act') because there was mandatory injunction issued by the Civil Court in its order dated 9.6.2007 (P.15) that the appellants could not be dispossessed except in due course of law. THE Gram Panchayat was restrained from interfering into the possession of the appellants. THE District Development and Panchayat Officer -cum- Assistant Collector came to the conclusion that the appellants failed to prove that the land in question was 'Jumla Mustarka Malkan'. Accordingly the application filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7(2) of the Act was allowed and the appellants were directed to hand over possession. THE view of the District Development and Panchayat Officer in its order dated 26.3.2008 (P.16) reads as under: " I have heard arguments of both the parties. After hearing arguments, and perusing the evidence available on the case file, I have come to the conclusion that the mutation No. 907 relied upon (by) the respondents is not sanctioned as the Patwari has only mentioned the same as contested case. It has not been sanctioned by the competent authority so as to prove that the land in question has been conferred the status of Jumla Mustarka Malkan. THE respondents have also not produced any evidence that how much of their land was utilized in the cut and how much is their share in the disputed land. THErefore, the respondents are ordered to remove their possession within 10 days and hand over the same to the Gram Panchayat. As the respondents have earned monetary benefits by cultivating the disputed land, therefore, in lieu of the same, they shall also pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- per hectare per year from 1965 to 1992, total Rs.53586, at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per hectare per year from 1993 to 2007, total Rs. 2,18,400 i.e. Gross amount of Rs. 2,71,986.00 to the Gram Panchayat by LPA No. 457 of 2009 3 way of penalty."

(2.) THE District Collector has also accepted the view while dismissing the appeal of the appellants and has held that the total area of disputed land is 31 kanals and 4 marlas owned by the Gram Panchayat which was reserved village for common purposes as per the revenue record. THE categorical findings are that the appellants have unauthorizedly occupied the same. Likewise it has also been concluded that the appellants did not handover possession of the land to the Gram Panchayat in exchange. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed on 7.8.2008 (P.17). Still further the appellants preferred a revision petition before the Commissioner, Hissar Division, Hisar which also met the same fate.