ASSA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking intervention under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.02.2012 (Annexure P-11) of Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur-respondent No. 2 vide which direction has been issued to Tehsildar, Ferozepur-respondent No. 4 to take the possession of the land stated to be in illegal possession in a complete and illegal manner and also writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to act in legal and fair manner and should not forcibly and illegally evict the petitioner, except in due course of law.

(2.) Mr. N.P.S. Mann, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that father of the petitioner namely Iqbal Singh son of Jaimal Singh purchased the land measuring 149 kanals 9 marlas, description of which is given in para No. 2 of the writ petition, in open auction held in the year 1966 and in lieu thereof deposited a sum of Rs. 4675/- vide receipt No. 12 dated 01.05.1966 and Rs. 16025/- vide receipt No. 20 dated 10.08.1966 (Annexure P-1 and P-2) respectively. Certificate of sale as per Rule 90(15) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 as, it then was in vogue, now repealed, was issued on 10.08.1966 (Annexure P-3). The land situated in above said khasra numbers was transferred in the name of the father of the petitioner and mutation bearing No. 5198 dated 16.09.1967 was sanctioned. However, there are two records maintained. One is Parat Sarkar and another is parat patwar. As far as parat sarkar is concerned, it was reflected in the name of the petitioner but there was no correct entry in register of patwari. Resultantly, application was moved to record farad badar in terms of the provision of Clause 7.29 of the Land Record Manual. However, the petitioner was flabbergasted to know that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 attempted to evict him from the land on the premise that land belong to the Government and resultantly went to the office of respondent No. 3 and came to know that land was not in the ownership of his father. Accordingly, moved an application to SDM Ferozepur-respondent No. 3 for issuance of farad badar. SDM Ferozepur called report from Tehsildar-respondent No. 4 and as well as from Halqa Patwari who vide his report dated 22.06.2005 submitted that land measuring 149 kanals 10 marlas was purchased by Iqbal Singh vide rapat No. 370 dated 20.08.1967 and entry in this regard was made in the roznamcha. Resultantly, suggestion was made to correct the parat patwar vide order dated 01.08.2005 (Annexure P-7). When nothing was done, petitioner on 17.02.2011 (Annexure P-8) again made a request for implementing the order of SDM dated 01.08.2005, but despite that SDM Ferozepur did not do anything. Petitioner approached this Court vide CWP No. 2591 of 2012 and sought direction to the respondents to comply with the order dated 01.08.2005. Said writ petition was disposed of, vide order dated 13.02.2012 (Annexure P-10) with a direction to dispose of the application dated 17.02.2011 within a period of three months. Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 27.02.2012 (Annexure P-11) at the back of the petitioners directed the respondent No. 4 to take the possession of the present land. After that, the official started taking proceedings regarding possession from the petitioner and raised hue and cry and openly proclaimed that they shall take the possession and thus, the petitioner is illegally being harassed by respondent No. 2 to 4 owing to the fact that petitioner belong to the party not in power.

(3.) Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Addl. A.G. Punjab submits that enquiry has been conducted in pursuance to the directions given in order passed in CWP No. 2591 of 2012. SDM, vide its report (Annexure R-1) found that the claim of the petitioner was not established as he was found to be in unauthorized occupation. Cases of eviction of unauthorized occupation already reached upto Hon'ble High Court for last 25 years. Name of the petitioner or his father did not figure in any khasra girdawri nor the documentary evidence which were required to be sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. Value of the property is more than 50 to 60 crores and submitted that documents were forged and fabricated in collusion with some officials of the Department in order to grab the Government property and the application (Annexure P-8) was thus rejected.