VIVEK KHUSHLANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dtd. 8/6/2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Deputy Commissioner/respondent No.2 vide which the sale deed dtd. 6/5/2022 (Annexure P-1) executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent no.4 has been cancelled. A further prayer has been made for setting aside the cancellation deed dtd. 9/6/2022 (Annexure P-3). BRIEF FACTS

(2.) Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner had executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.4 on 6/5/2022 and the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sohna had issued notice dtd. 27/5/2022 (Annexure P-14) to show cause as to why the said sale deed should not be cancelled. The said notice was not served upon the petitioner as is apparent from the pleadings in para 12 of the writ petition and in its corresponding reply filed by the State and was served only upon respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 had given a detailed reply dtd. 3/6/2022 (Annexure P-15) to the said notice and the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, vide order dtd. 8/6/2022 (Annexure P-2), granted permission to cancel the sale deed by relying upon Chapter 5(1)(c) of the Haryana Registration Manual para 159(A), incorporated in the Haryana Registration Manual after para 159, by virtue of notification dtd. 22/12/2020 on the ground that the land in question was 'Shamilat Deh'. In pursuance of the permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dtd. 8/6/2022 (P-2), cancellation deed has been executed on 9/6/2022 (Annexure P-3) and the land has been ordered to be vested with the gram panchayat. It is the case of the petitioner that an auction by the Rehabilitation Department was held and allotment of the land in question was made in favour of predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner i.e., Bhagwan Dass and Laxmi Narain on 28/10/1964 and the sale certificates dtd. 13/11/1964 (Annexures P-5 and P-7) were issued by the Rehabilitation Department and warrant of possession had also been issued subsequent to the same, in the year 1964 and mutation was also sanctioned in the year 1965. It is further the case of the petitioner that vide registered sale deed dtd. 21/8/1985 (Annexure P-8), said Bhagwan Dass and legal representatives of Laxmi Narain had sold the land to M/s Shrikant Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd., who had, vide two sale deeds, further sold the land in question on 7/5/1991 (Annexures P-10 and P-11) to the petitioner and it is the petitioner who had sold the said land to respondent No.4 for a valuable consideration vide registered sale deed dtd. 6/5/2022. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner on sub-clause (ii-a) of Clause (g) of Sec. 2 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 1961'), as is applicable to the State of Haryana, to state that in the said circumstances, the land would not be 'Shamilat Deh' and thus, the provisions which have been invoked would not apply to the present case. The documents relied upon by the petitioner have not been disputed in the reply filed by the State. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the gram panchayat have opposed the present writ petition and have prayed for dismissal of the same. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner:-

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dtd. 8/6/2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram/respondent No.2, vide which the sale deed dtd. 6/5/2022 (Annexure P-1) executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.4 has been cancelled by placing reliance upon the notification dtd. 23/12/2020 (Annexure P-16) issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Chandigarh, is absolutely illegal and against law. It is submitted that a perusal of said notification (Annexure P-16), more so, Chapter 5 Clause 1(c), which has been invoked in the present case, would show that the said instructions/notification would apply in a case where the sale is of 'Shamilat Deh' land, which is vested or deemed to have been vested in the Panchayat Deh under the Act of 1961. It is argued that 'Shamilat Deh' has been defined in Sec. 2(g) of the Act of 1961, as is applicable to the State of Haryana, and the exclusionary clause of Sec. 2(g) enumerates situations/circumstances, which excludes the land from being 'Shamilat Deh'. Clause (ii-a) of the exclusionary clause has been highlighted in order to show that where 'Shamilat Deh' land has been allotted to any person by the Rehabilitation Department of the State Government after the commencement of the Act of 1961, but on or before 9/7/1985, then, the same would not be 'Shamilat Deh' land and once, the same is not ''Shamilat Deh', then, the sale of such land would not be liable to be cancelled under the instruction/notification dtd. 23/12/2020 (Annexure P16) and the impugned order dtd. 8/6/2022 (Annexure P-2), which has been passed by placing reliance upon the said notification/instruction, would be unsustainable and the cancellation deed dtd. 9/6/2022 (Annexure P-3) executed in pursuance of order dtd. 8/6/2022 (Annexure P-2) would be liable to be set aside.