THAKUR DASS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have impugned the orders Annexure P-2 to P-5 by way of the present petition claiming that the land in dispute belongs to them and does not form a part of this Shamlat Deh. For this purpose reliance has been placed on Annexure P-1 which is a copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1987-88 in which they have been shown to be in possession as owners. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that this document has not been correctly read by the authorities below. It has also been asserted that in view of the recent amendment made in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992, the mutation of the land mentioned in the Jamabandi Annexure P-1 has been sought to be modified to show that the ownership vests in the State and this Act has been challenged in this Court in a number of writ petitions. The counsel for the respondents has, however, based his claim on Annexure R-5/2 and R-5/3 to contend that as far back as in the year 1958-59 during the course of consolidation proceedings with respect to this very land the same was reserved for common purposes of the village as "Jakhira Darkhtan and Charagah". It has also been asserted by the learned counsel that though a number of opportunities were given to the petitioners to produce evidence in their favour showing their ownership yet they did not do so and this fact was noticed by the Collector while making the order Annexure P-2.

(2.) After hearing counsel for the parties, we find no merit in this petition. It is clear that it was open to the petitioners to produce before the authorities, under the Act, all the relevant material in their possession to prove their claim that the land in question was not Shamlat Deh. This evidence was not forthcoming for reason unknown. As a matter of fact the documents relied upon by the respondents indicate that the land in question was Shamlat Deh and had been reserved as such at the time of consolidation.

(3.) In the light of what has been held above, we are of the view that the amendment made by Act No. 9 of 1992 by the State of Haryana does not come in the way of the petitioners as the finding of fact is that the land in question was Shamlat Deh. In question of challenging the vires of the said Act the facts of the present case, therefore, do not arise. The writ petition is therefore dismissed in limine. No costs.