LAWS(P&H)-2016-11-96

RAM KANWAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY HARYANA, CIVIL SECRETARIAT CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

Decided On November 22, 2016
Ram Kanwar And Others Appellant
V/S
State Of Haryana Through Chief Secretary Haryana, Civil Secretariat Chandigarh And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the appellate order dated 28.9.1995 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Commissioner, Guragon Division, Gurgaon, whereby ejectment order dated 18.4.1995 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Collector, Narnaul, against the petitioners, was upheld, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners, they have approached this Court by way of present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned orders.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued and dispossession of the petitioners was stayed. Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents. Thereafter, writ petition was admitted for regular hearing, vide order dated 6.5.1996 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.

(3.) It has gone undisputed before this Court that original owner of the land in question was Smt. Surji widow of Late Sh. Jhutha son of Sh. Cheta. Smt. Surji, true owner of the land in question, entered into an agreement to sell with the petitioners on 22.12.1975, for an amount of Rs. 2,500.00, for the land measuring 5 kanal 3 marla. Out of total sale consideration of Rs.2,500.00, an amount of Rs.2,300.00 was received by Smt. Surji and the remaining amount of Rs. 200.00 was to be received by her, at the time of execution of the sale deed. Sale deed was to be executed within a period of six months, i.e. on or before 25.6.1976. Possession was handed over to the petitioners at the time of agreement to sell. It was recorded in the column of cultivation in the jamabandi for the year 1977-78 (Annexure P-1) that the petitioners were in possession, because of agreement to sell. It is also pertinent to note here that column No.5 of the jamabandi (Annexure P- 1) would show that petitioners were, as a matter of fact, coming in cultivating possession from earlier point of time as tenants at will.