DHARAMBIR Vs. COMMISSIONER, ROHTAK DIVISION, ROHTAK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per report made by the Registry, cost of Rs.500/- imposed vide order dated 05.11.2014 has not been paid by respondent no.3. If not paid within a month, the same shall be recovered as land revenue. Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari for quashing of order dated 08.10.1993 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no.3 Collector, Sonepat whereby eviction of the petitioner has been ordered and order dated 10.02.1994 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondent no.1 Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.3 Municipal Committee, Kharkhoda filed an ejectment application under Section 4 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "PP Act") against the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is in illegal possession of land measuring 19 kanals 14 marlas. The Collector vide order dated 08.10.1993 (Annexure P/1) allowed the application of respondent no.3 and eviction of the petitioner was ordered. Against that, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, who vide order dated 10.02.1994 (Annexure P/3) has dismissed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) In pursuance of notice of motion, respondent no.3 filed written statement categorically taking a stand that the land in question was shamilat land which was being used for common purposes by the inhabitants of the of village which initially vested in the Gram Panchayat. Said land was not land of the proprietors as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner was never in possession of the land in question prior to 1988. There is no documentary evidence to show the possession of the petitioner except a wrong entry in the name of the petitioner in khasra girdawari for the year 1975-76. Said entry was got corrected by the Gram Panchayat immediately thereafter. Thereafter, on constitution of Municipal Committee, the property in question vested in the Municipal Committee. The impugned orders passed by the authorities under the PP Act are legal and valid. The Municipal Committee is recorded as owner in the jamabandi for the year 1988-89 (Annexure R/1).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question. In the jamabandi for the year 1960-61 (Annexure P/4), the land in question has been shown to be "Patti Musalmanan Thola Salaar etc." In the ownership column, it has been shown as "Shamilat Thola" and in the cultivation column, "possession of owners" has been mentioned. The petitioner is in continuous possession of the land in question. Learned counsel has made reference to Khasra Girdawari (Annexure P/5) commencing from 30.10.1975 and contends that the petitioner has been continuously cultivating the land for the crops of khariff and rabi since the year 1975 onwards. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the land has been wrongly transferred initially in the name of Gram Panchayat and thereafter, in the name of Municipal Committee. Since the possession of the petitioner is prior to coming into force the PP Act, he is entitled to protection and he cannot be evicted under the provisions of the PP Act. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Devindra Singh and another vs. The State of Punjab and others, 1972 PunLJ 592.