LAWS(P&H)-2022-5-344

BUDHI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On May 04, 2022
BUDHI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dtd. 21/11/2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Palwal-respondent No. 4, whereby petition preferred under Sec. 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as '1961 Act') seeking eviction of the petitioners by private respondents No. 5 to 11 was allowed and a fine of Rs.4000.00 per hectare yearly was imposed upon them, order dtd. 31/5/2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the District Collector, Palwal-respondent No. 3 dismissing the appeal of the petitioners and the order dtd. 15/1/2021 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Commissioner, Faridabad Division, Faridabad-respondent No. 2 dismissing the revision petition.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been given an opportunity to lead evidence as the question of title arises in the present case. The predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners had built the houses on the land during the year 1938-39. The possession being prior to 26/1/1950, the cut off date, the petitioners being in continuous possession of the said land were entitled to continue in possession of the land in question. It is asserted that the petition under Sec. 7 of the 1961 Act at the instance of the private respondent No. 5 to 11 is not maintainable.

(3.) Another plea, which had been taken by the petitioners, is that they had taken 1 Kanal and 5 Marlas of land in auction from the Gram Panchayat and had built their houses etc. There is no evidence on record that the Gram Panchayat, Janoli is the owner of the property in question. The houses have been built by the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners and they are continuing in possession thereof since the year 1938-39 and, therefore, they cannot be dispossessed. Assertion has also been made that the fine, which has been imposed upon the petitioners, is unjust and unreasonable and deserves to be set aside. Counsel, therefore, prays that the impugned orders be set aside and the writ petition allowed.