MANGE RAM DEAD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON may 12, 1973, Respondent Kalli Ram filed a petition Under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 with the prayer that Mange Ram etc. being in illegal possession of the land in dispute be called upon to vacate it. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Bahadurgarh, accepted this petition vide order dated April 5, 1978. A copy of this order is on record as Annexure P. 1. The appeal filed by Mange Ram etc. having been dismissed by the Collector, Rohtak on December 18, 1978, the petitioners approached this court through Civil Writ Petition No. 1208 of 1979. This writ petition was allowed on the ground that the Collector had not passed a speaking order. The case was, accordingly, remanded to the Collector for a fresh decision. On October 22,1979, the Collector dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition.

(2.) IT appears that this case had come up for hearing before G. R. Mjithia, J. on November 25, 1992. The Registry was directed to "summon the original record of Case No. 52 of 12. 5. 1970 (Kali Ram v. Mange Ram etc.) decided by Shri I. D. Kaushik, Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Bahadurgarh on April 5, 1978. " Thereafter, when the case was listed for hearing in the year 1996, learned counsel for the petitioners had pointed out that the record had not been summoned. Consequently, vide order dated October 28, 1996, directions for summoning the record immediately were given. It was also ordered that the case shall be listed for hearing on December 9, 1996. When the case was put up for hearing on December 9, 1996, Mr. Gur Rattan Pal Singh had pointed out that the file "which had been received by the High Court does not have all the documents on record. . . . . . Learned counsel had prayed for an adjournment to give the particulars of the record which had to be summoned. Thereafter, C. M. No. 1460 of 1997 was filed by the counsel in which it was averred that "after the inspection of the summoned file it stood revealed, that. . . . the file is not at all complete. " A prayer was made that the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Bahadurgarh be directed to assist the court "in procuring the file. . . in its entirety. " Notice of this application was given to the Advocate General, Haryana. Notice was also ordered to be given to the counsel for respondent No. 4. On Feburary 6, 1997, N. K. Sodhi, J. had directed that this application shall be taken up with the main case. Today at hearing, Ms. Ritu Bahri states that no instructions have been received by the Advocate General to appear on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. Only Mr. Mahavir Sandhu has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 4 and 5.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , Kalli Ram-respondent No. 5 had filed the petition Under Section 7. The onus of proving that the land belonged to the Gram Panchayat and that the present petitioners were in unauthorised occupation, was on him. Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5 is unable to refer to any evidence on record to show that Kalli Ram had actually discharged the onus. Still further, it appears from a perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Collector that the present petitioners had produced :