VED PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 16.8.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 9305 of 1993) filed by Bansi Dhar (father of the appellant), challenging the orders dated 26.11.1986; (Annexure P-1), 12.3.1991; (Annexure P-3) and 22.9.1992 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jhajjar; the Collector, Rohtak; and the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, respectively, has been dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned order as well as the orders passed by the authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (As applicable to Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), we do not find any merit in this appeal.

(2.) The father of the appellant, claiming himself to be in possession of the land in question, which according to the revenue record was shamilat deh, filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 5 herein) from dispossessing him from the land in question. It is admitted position that father of the appellant never claimed ownership on the said land. His claim was based upon the alleged possession. In that suit, a preliminary objection was raised with regard to jurisdiction of the civil court to determine the issue as to whether the land in question was shamilat deh vesting in the Gram Panchayat or not. The civil court, after considering the preliminary objection and in view of Section 13 of the Act, which bars the jurisdiction of the civil court to determine such an issue, vide order dated 12.12.1981, returned the plaint to the father of the appellant to file it before the appropriate court having jurisdiction in the matter. The said order was challenged in appeal, but the appeal was also dismissed on 5.4.1982.

(3.) Thereafter, the father of the appellant presented that suit before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jhajjar. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, vide order dated 26.11.1986 (Annexure P-1), dismissed the suit, while recording a finding of fact that father of the appellant had failed to prove his possession on the land in question. It was further held that there is no provision in the Act, under which an order of permanent injunction could be passed against the Gram Panchayat. An observation was also made that the land in dispute vested in the Government, instead of the Gram Panchayat. Father of the appellant did not file any appeal. However, aggrieved against this observation, the Gram Panchayat filed an appeal before the Collector, Rohtak, who vide order dated 12.3.1991 (Annexure P-3) allowed the appeal and in view of the revenue record, i.e. jamabandi for the year 1931-32 as well as wajib-ul-urj, where the land in dispute was recorded as shamilat deh, held that the land in dispute was clearly falling under the definition of 'shamilat deh', therefore, it vested in the Gram Panchayat. It was held that mere sanctioning of mutation in favour of the Government ipso facto does not mean that the land in question was not shamilat deh and vested in the State Government.