MEHAR SINGH Vs. SADHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders dated 26.12.1984 (Annexure P-7) passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Naraingarh, Camp at Jagadhri, dated 10.12.1985 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala.

(2.) MEHAR Singh petitioner, who is resident of Village Nabh, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala, filed a suit for declaration under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as applicable to Haryana, against respondents No. 1 to 82 to the effect that the land in question measuring 4/6 kanals 1 marla is charand of the village and the same falls within the definition of 'Shamlat Deh' as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act, hence the same vests in the Gram Panchayat under Section 4 of the Act. He further pleaded that the aforesaid land in question was earmarked as charand in the consolidation of holdings which took place in the village in the year 1955-56. In the jamabandi for the year 1976-77, this land has also been shown as charand, therefore, it vests in the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the Gram Panchayat be declared as its owner in possession. It was also pleaded that the contesting respondents in connivance with the Gram Panchayat as well as the revenue authorities, got the aforesaid land partitioned amongst themselves, whereas the said land was impartionable and the proprietors have no concern with the same because it vests in the Gram Panchayat. The aforesaid suit filed by the petitioner was contested by respondents No. 1 to 82 and the Assistant Collector II Grade vide its order dated 26.12.1984 (Annexure P-7) dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner while holding that the land in question does not vest in the Gram Panchayat because it is not the charand land.

(3.) SHRI . S.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as per the revenue record the land in question measuring 423 kanals 6 marlas is recorded as charand. During the consolidation proceedings, this land was earmarked for charand and in the jamabandi for the year 1976-77, this land has been specifically recorded as charand. He further submitted that as per Section 2(g)(1) of the Act, the lands described in the revenue records as charand will be Shamlat Deh which vest in the Gram Panchayat under Section 4 of the Act. While referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shish Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2000(3) RCR(Civil) 279 (SC) : 2000(2) PLJ 72, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the land was reserved in consolidation for charand and has been depicted in the revenue record as charand, the same absolutely vests in the Gram Panchayat; and the Gram Panchayat was even held entitled to use such charand land for any one or more of the purposes specified in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Collector dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the aforesaid two technical grounds without any justification and reason. He submitted that the petitioner filed the aforesaid appeal on 14.1.1985 against the order dated 26.12.1984 (Annexure P- 7) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and on the memorandum of appeal, he affixed court fee of Rs. 15/-. Subsequently, when the objection regarding the court fee was raised, he filed an application on 19.11.1985 under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for making good the deficiency in court fee by explaining how and under which impression court fee of Rs. 15/- was affixed. Learned counsel further submitted that initially the petitioner filed appeal on 14.1.1985 without the copy of the impugned order as the certified copy thereof was not available on that date, since he wanted to seek injunction against the contesting respondents for restraining them from utilising the aforesaid land, therefore, he filed the appeal without the copy of the order. Subsequently, the certified copy of the said order was placed on record, when it was received by him. In view of the said facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Collector should not have dismissed the appeal on the aforesaid two grounds by adopting a technical view of the matter. He further submitted that the revision against the order passed by the learned Collector was also dismissed by the learned Commissioner in limine by a non-speaking order, and while mentioning wrong fact to the effect that the Gram Panchayat was not impleaded in the case whereas it was a necessary party. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Gram Panchayat was a party in the case and the learned Commissioner has not looked into that aspect of the matter and dismissed the revision without application of mind.