SURAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against order dated 30.05.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division.

(2.) FACTS in brief are that the respondent filed a petition in the Court of Collector, Jagadhri against the appellant under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of Haryana Public Premises Eviction Act pertaining to the land bearing Khasra No. 106/28 measuring 18 Kanals 17 Marlas situated in village Chhachhrauli, Revenue Estate No. 311 that the Government is owner of the said land and every year the said land is given on Chakota to the highest bidder. The land was auctioned in favour of the appellant at the rate of Rs. 670/- for the year 1988-89 and for the year 1990-91 it was auctioned in favour of Balbir Kumar son of Shanti Kumar and Subhash Chand son of Shri Bhagwan Dass as per highest chatoka but due to stay over the land in dispute the possession over the land remained with the appellant. This case was adjourned sine die vide orders dated 29.8.2003 passed by the Collector, Jagadhri. Thereafter again the case was fixed on the application of the appellant dated 19.1.2004. The Collector decided the application vide his order dated 4.7.2006 directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 2,10,000/- within a period of two months along with Rs. 10,800/- chakota amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 31.1.2002 till the date of deposit of the amount by the appellant.

(3.) ON the other hand, ADA appearing for the State has contended that the land in dispute is Nazul land which is owned by the State Govt. as per revenue record as in the Jamabandi for the years 1963-64, 1965-66, 1970-71 the Government has been entered as owner of the said land. Further, the appellant is not entitled to take possession of Nazul land as the same can only be transferred to a member of Scheduled Caste as per Nazul Land (Transfer Rules), 1956. The learned Collector ought to have passed ejectment orders against the appellant instead of awarding of giving amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- to the appellant. Even learned Senior Sub Judge, Jagadhri has treated possession of the appellant as a trespasser and his ejectment cannot be effected by way of without due course of law.