NARANJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NARANJAN Singh and two others, through present petition filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash orders dated 28.11.2000, 1.8.2000 and 10.5.2000 passed by respondents 2 to 4, respectively, in the proceedings initiated by them under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Whereas, regular suit filed by the petitioners under Section 13-A of the Act seeking ownership of the property in dispute was dismissed vide order dated 10.5.2000 passed by the Collector, appeal and revision filed against the said order came to be dismissed by learned Commissioner and Financial Commissioner vide orders dated 1.8.2000 and 28.11.2000, respectively. The orders, that have been impugned in the present petition, would manifest that the petitioners failed in their endeavour to get the land declared as belonging to them primarily for the reason that they were unable to produce any evidence on record to show that they are owners. Surely, the petitioners, before the Courts below, for declaration to the effect, as mentioned above, had to bring admissible evidence on record to show that they are the owners and if, therefore, no evidence was produced by them, their regular suit had to be dismissed.

(2.) IN response to the notice that was issued by this Court, reply on behalf of respondents 1 and 4 has been filed wherein, it has, inter alia, been pleaded that the petition is hopelessly time barred as mutation was sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat way back in the year 1955. The mutation was sanctioned as per Shamlat Law of 1952 and the land in question vests in the Gram Panchayat as per the provisions of Section 2(g) of the Act. It is then pleaded that the land was auctioned in the year 1996-97 to different lessees and the petitioners were also the bidders and they had marked their presence in the register of lease and had raised no objection regarding the title of the land in question.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance, examined the records of the case. In the context of limited controversy involved in this case, I find no merit whatsoever in the only contention raised on behalf of the petitioners, as noted above. The case of the kind dealt with by the concerned authorities had primarily to be determined on the basis of documentary evidence. Such documentary evidence is readily available from the revenue Patwari as the same is only in the shape of Khasra Girdwaris, Jamabandis and Mutations. Insofar as, suit under Section 13-A of the Act is concerned, same came to be filed by the petitioners on 27.10.1999. The petitioners ought to have, at least, produced on record documentary evidence in their endeavour to show that they were owners of the property in dispute and the mutation sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat way back in 1955 was incorrect or legally unsustainable. No effort in this regard appears to have been made by the petitioners not only during the course of trial before the Collector but also before learned Commissioner and Financial Commissioner. Despite all this, the Court might have considered the desirability of remanding this case, giving opportunity to the petitioners to lead their evidence, if perhaps, the documents, that have been placed on the records of present petition even now, might have even, prima facie, shown that they were owners of the property in dispute.