SHIV DATT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this Court for challenging the provisions of sub-clause (6) and explanation thereof, to clause (g) of Sec. 2 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, 1961 Act) as amended by Haryana Act No.9 of 1992, whereby the land in possession of the proprietors had allegedly vested in the Gram Panchayat, being ultra vires to the provisions of Articles 13, 14, 31-A and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also for quashing of mutation No. 5468 dated 07.05.1992 (Annexure P-3), order dated 17.02.1995 (Annexure P-11) of the Commissioner and as well as order dated 01.08.1994 (Annexure P-9) of the Collector, whereby, the petitioners in the proceedings initiated under the Haryana Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972, were ordered to be evicted and also for restraining the respondents from interfering into possession of the petitioners on the premise that they are in possession of the land comprising of khewat/khatoni No. 1295/1452 measuring 113 kanals 11 marlas, including khasra No. 15 (6-13) of Rect. No.82, situated within the revenue estate of Hathin, Tehsil Hathin, District Faridabad as tenants at will.

(2.) Petitioners are claiming to be biswedars, i.e., proprietors of the land, therefore, they are co-sharers in the shamlat deh land of the village and in support thereof, reliance has been placed on jamabandi for the year 1989- 90 (Annexure P-1) and khasra girdawari (Annexure P-2). It has been alleged that the land, which was sanctioned in the name of Gram Panchayat, but thereafter, vide mutation No. 5468 dated 07.05.1992 without affording opportunity of hearing, vested in the Municipal Committee, Hathin and resultantly, eviction order has been passed, which has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Adarsh Jain, learned counsel representing the petitioners submitted that vesting of the land in favour of the Municipal Committee or Gram Panchayat as per the provisions of 1961 Act as applicable to the Haryana State is wholly against the ratio decidendi culled out by the Full Bench of this Court in Suraj Bhan and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2017 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 934 as, such procedure has been held to be ultra vires under Articles 300-A and 31-A of the Constitution. No owner of the land can be deprived of ownership and title by deeming provisions of the Act owing to the subsequent developments, particularly when not a single penny of compensation had been paid and, thus, urged for setting-aside the impugned order ordering eviction of the petitioners.