SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of Annexure P1 and also subsequent proceedings for entering the mutation in favour of Gram Panchayat, respondent No. 3.

(2.) BRIEF facts are that there is land measuring 273 Kanals in Village Bargat, District Kurukshetra. In the column of ownership of Jamabandi for the year 1984-85, the petitioners and other right-holders of the village are recorded as owners in possession of this land since consolidation proceedings took place in the village. Before the present petitioners, their ancestors were in cultivating possession of this land and it was not utilised as shamilat deh. a decree for declaration regarding partition between the petitioners was passed by a civil Court on November 18,1983. That decree was not challenged by the Gram Panchayat at any time. Now after about thirty years of finalisation of Consolidation Scheme, respondent No. 2 has written a letter, dated August 3, 1990 Annexure P1 to the tehsildar, Thanesar to record mutation in favour of Gram Panchayat instead of recording it in the names of the petitioners and other right-holders mentioned in the jamabandi for the year 1984-85. It is further alleged that on the basis of Annexure P1, the Tehsildar has initiated proceedings for the change of mutation in the name of Gram Panchayat. It is further pleaded that earlier also, letters Exhibits P2 and P4 were written by the Deputy Commissioner to the Tehsildar for change of mutation in the name of Gram panchayat. These letters were challenged by filing Civil Writ Petitions 2590 of 1981 and 6229 of 1989. On the statement having been made by the State counsel, the orders impugned were withdrawn. Consequently, those writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous vide Annexures P3 and P5, respectively. It is also pleaded that ownership as recorded in the revenue record was sought to be taken away by the State by inserting Sections 13-A and 13-B in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act, 1961 by Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act, 1974. The Amending Act was challenged by filing various writ petitions and Section 13-A being ultra vires the Constitution, was struck down. It was also alleged that no notice whatsoever was served on the petitioners and they were not summoned at any time before writing the letter, Exhibit P1. It is also pleaded that the order of the Deputy Commissioner on the face of it is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. There cannot be any change in the revenue record and dispossession of the petitioners without there being any adjudication as required Under Section 13-A of the Act of 1981, as amended by Haryana Act No. 2 of 1981. After the adjudication by the Assistant Collector, the petitioners have a right of appeal to the Collector and a revision before the Commissioner. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has acted illegally in passing the order, Annexure P1, which deserves to be quashed.

(3.) THE same pleas were taken by respondent 1 and 2.