MUKHTIARA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to order, Annexure P-2, dated 13.3.1984 passed by the Collector, Kurukshetra vide which, appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against order dated 25.11.1983 was dismissed and even though not specifically stated, the suit of the Member Panchayat of Gram Panchayat Bhaleri filed under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was decreed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case would reveal that Gram Panchayat Bhaleri filed a title suit under Section 13-A of the Act seeking a decree for declaration that it was the owner of the land, subject matter of the dispute. During the currency of the suit, the Gram Panchayat maintained an application for grant of stay. Learned Assistant Collector, before whom matter came up for hearing on 16.12.1983, granted stay only with regard to the land measuring 5 kanals 2 marlas and not regarding the remaining land, subject matter of suit. Aggrieved, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the Collector with the result already indicated above.

(3.) IT is, thus, apparent from the reading of the entire order, Annexure P-2, with the back ground, as mentioned above, that Annexure P-2 is a conceded order. Mr. Jain, however, on the basis of the pleadings made in paragraph 3 of the petition, states that no concession was made before the concerned authority. Contention of Mr. Jain cannot possibly be accepted as not only that the official acts done, be it judicial or quasi judicial, which have been carried out in discharge of their duties, are presumed to be true, in the present case sufficient material is available on the records that would show that concession was, indeed, made before learned Collector. In the circumstances, as mentioned above, it is clear that number of persons, including the petitioner, collected at the spot, where almost every officer/official, who was concerned with the case, was present. It is significant to mention that nothing has been mentioned in the petition that there was no spot inspection in presence of so many persons, officers/officials and the petitioner which fortifies the view of the Court that concession was, indeed, made before learned Collector. Once, it is held that the impugned order is a conceded order, no occasion at all arises to interfere with the same.