BUDHA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing mutations No. 7731 and 7732 both dated 03.01.2005, Annexures P -11 and P -12. respectively and other mutations recorded pursuant to sale deeds executed by Kavish Gupta, respondent No. 5, in favour of respondents No. 6 to 28, whereby land belonging to the Gram Panchayat/Municipal Committee, Hathin, has been recorded as ownership of private respondents. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the land, in dispute, measuring 54 kanals and 12 marlas, situated within the revenue estate of Gram Panchayat Hathin was owned by the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, recorded as Panchayat Deh. The entry continued as such upto 1989 -90 and was even changed to Shamilat Deh, vide Mutation No. 5291 dated 15.10.1990. As village Hathin became a Municipal Committee in 1999 -2000, the land, in dispute, was recorded as ownership of Municipal Committee, Hathin but after abolition of the Municipal Committee, the Gram Panchayat was re -established and land was once again recorded as Panchayat Deh, as per jamabandi for the year 2004 -05. However, as village Hathin has once again been declared a Municipal Committee, the land, in dispute, vests in Municipal Committee, Hathin. Jawala Singh and others, who were merely recorded in possession of the land, in dispute, sold the land to Kavish Gupta and Narinder Kumar and thereafter obtained a collusive civil court decree to conceal their fraud. Kavish Gupta got mutations of ownership sanctioned in his name and thereafter sold the land to other private respondents. The fraud played by Jawala Singh and Kavish Gupta and his co -sharers is writ large on the facts of the present case. The mutations sanctioned in the name of Jawala Singh etc. and thereafter in the names of Kavish Gupta, on the basis of a sale deed, a civil court judgment and decree are null and void. In order to conceal his fraud, Kavish Gupta filed a writ petition which was disposed of in terms of the judgment in "Jai Singh and others v. the State of Haryana and others". The judgment in Jai Singh's case (supra) does not apply in the present case as the land, in dispute, is Shamilat Deh and not Jumla Mushtarka Malkan. It is prayed that a detailed inquiry may be ordered into this fraud and officials and the private respondents should be brought to book for misappropriating Panchayat property.

(2.) COUNSEL for respondents No. 6 to 18 submits that the land, in dispute, is excluded from Shamilat Deh and, therefore, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat or in the Municipal Committee as it was recorded as "Shamilat Deh Hasab Hissas Arazi Makbuja" in jamabandi for the year 1912. 13. The jamabandi also records the possession of proprietors. The sale deed executed by Jawala Singh etc. in favour of respondent No. 5 as proprietor and the subsequent sale deeds executed by respondent No. 5 and others, in favour of private respondents are legal and valid. The respondents are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration. It. is further submitted that building plans were submitted by private respondents to the Municipal Committee, Hathin after depositing requisite charges, vide receipts dated 13.10.2010 and 23.11.2011, thereby clearly proving that the land, in dispute, does not belong to the Gram Panchayat or the Municipal Committee. It is also pointed out, by reference to the report, Annexure R -7, prepared by Director, Urban and Local Bodies, that the revenue record is correct and there is no illegality. The judgment in Jai Singh's case (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The writ petition should, therefore, be dismissed with costs. Counsel for the private respondents further submits that they are the bonafide purchasers, who have purchased the land after perusal of the revenue record which reflects the ownership of Kavish Gupta and others. It is further submitted that in case the land is held to be Shamilat Deh, the right of the private respondents as bonafide purchasers may be protected.

(3.) THE case, in hand, demonstrates the ease with which unscrupulous elements, connive with revenue' officers, weave a web of fraudulent sale deeds, decrees and revenue entries to deprive Municipal Committees/Gram Panchayats of their properties. The brazen manner, in which officers tasked with an obligation to protect public property, collude and connive in perpetuating a fraud, leaves one to wonder whether any public property is safe.