MAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated June 30, 1975 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sonepat, copy of which is attached as Annexure P.1 to the petition.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Man Singh-petitioner is a proprietor of village Jakhauli, Tehsil and District Sonepat. He has been in cultivating possession of the land measuring 26 Kanals 15 Marlas situated in village Jakhauli without payment of any rent as a co-sharer for more than 12 years prior to 26th January, 1950. This land did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. It had never been put to use for the benefit of the village communiuty or a part thereof or for any other common purpose of the village. The Gram Panchayat in collusion withthe Revenue Officers got a mutation of the land in dispute sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat at the back of the petitioner and without notice to him. On the representation made by the proprietary body of the village including the petitioner, the authorities rectified this mistake and again mutated the land in favour of the proprietors vide mutation No. 3755 dated 3rd September, 1973. The entries were made in the Revenue record showing this land as "Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat" and is in individual possession of the petitioner.

(3.) However, the Gram Panchayat obtained an ejectment order against the petitioner from the Assistant Collector Ist Grade under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat from interfering with the posssession of the petitioner. The civil court granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner restraining the Gram Panchayat from dispossessing him. During the pendency of the civil suit, the Haryana Legislature enacted the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act, 1971 (Haryana Act No. 34 of 1974) which was enforced on November 12, 1974. In pursuance of section 13-B incorporated by this amendment, the suit of the petitioner was transferred to the Court of Assistant Collector, Sonepat. The Assistant Collector was required to decide this case as a Revenue Court by broadly following the principle of Civil Procedure Code in accordance with the provisions of section 88 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. He did not do so. He dismissed the suit by a sketchy order. He did not allow the petitioner to lead any evidence. He observed that "I cannot alter the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade (by which the eviction of the petitioner had been ordered) whether it is based on summary enquiry or on detailed enquiry. In the circumstances, I order dismissal of this suit and I cannot give different orders than the Assistant Collector; because his decision has been given by a person having equal rights (status )". Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition.