SUNTA DEVI Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claim of the petitioner is that Ishwar Singh, husband of the petitioner, Sunta Devi (since deceased) and now represented through L.Rs impleaded vide order dated 11.9.2007 in CM No. 13128 of 2008, is that she was in cultivating possession of the disputed land measuring 65 Kanals 1 Marla, fully described in the writ petition being Gair Marusi tenant, on payment of Rs. 1700/- per annum as "Lagaan Bill Mukta" for the full year. Entries were incorporated in the copy of Jamabandi to this effect in Annexures P-1 to P-5. After the death of Ishwar Singh, entries in the Jamabandi were mutated in favour of the petitioner and her sons. A perusal of the copy of jamabandies clearly depict that the land in dispute is in the ownership of Government, High School, Balla. However, the same was in physical and cultivating possession of the petitioner being Gair Marusi tenant at the rate of Rs. 1700/- per annum, as is recorded in column No. 2. The petitioners claim that they are in permissible and lawful possession as tenant under the government High School, Balla. According to the petitioners they are paying the lease money regularly to the government. It is alleged that respondent No. 3 filed an application under Sections 2 to 7 of the Haryana Public Premises Act, 1971 in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), cum Collector, Assandh, District Karnal, for the ejectment of the petitioner and her sons from the land in dispute alleging therein that according to the jamabandi for the year 1995-96 the petitioner Sunta and Dharamvir Singh son of Ishwar Singh, are recorded as "Gair Marusi tenant", wrongly and that the land is being cultivated by the petitioner and her sons without payment any rent and batai thereof either to the Government or to the Head Master of the School or Gram Panchayat. Hence, they are in un-authorized possession of the suit land for the last 25-30 years. The petitioners have alleged that the order of ejectment was passed against them because the Head-Master of the School has filed an affidavit before the authorities that the School has not received any amount on account of lease, as claimed by the petitioners. The petitioners have thus prayed that they being in permissible possession of the suit land are not in un-authorized possession of the land in dispute and the order of ejectment passed against them by the Collector Annexure P-7 is not sustainable.

(2.) UPON notice, the petition was contested by the respondents by filing written statement wherein it was asserted that the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court because the land in dispute measuring 65 Kanals 1 Marla, is owned by Senior Secondary School, Balla. The land in dispute was leased out for one year i.e. 1975-76 in an auction, for Rs. 1700/- per annum, in favour of Ishwar Singh and the lease was never given for in-definite period. Therefore, the petitioner are in un- authorized possession of the suit land. The entries in the revenue records pertaining to the year 1985-86 depicts the name of Ishwar Singh, as Gair Marusi, was wrongly shown because the lease period was never extended. This mistake also occurred in the jamabandi for the years 1995-96 and 2000-2001. It is alleged that the petitioners have not placed on the record any rent note or lease deed, which was ever executed in favour of Ishwar Singh. An affidavit was filed before the Collector by the Head Master of the School regarding un- authorized possession of the petitioners over the suit property, wherein the factum of inducting the petitioners as tenant over the suit property was denied as well as that the same was leased out to Ishwar Singh beyond a period of one year. Though an attempt was made by the petitioners to sent the Bank Draft for an amount of Rs. 5100/- to the School but the same was returned as no lease deed was ever executed between the petitioners and respondent No. 3. With these pleas in the written statement, the respondents prayed that the order of ejectment passed by the Collector, is in accordance with the law and the same be up-held.

(3.) THE petitioners have now impugned the aforesaid orders before this Court in this Writ Petition.