DHARAM PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants complain that their land measuring 4961 Sq. Yds. has been included in the scheme approved by the State Government in June, 1959, vide Annexure P3 with the writ petition. The respondents maintain that only 4061 sq. yds. of land belonging to the appellants has been included in the said scheme. The learned Single Judge having dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that there was a dispute on facts, the writ petitioners have filed the present Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the parties have been heard.

(3.) After the admission of the Letters Patent Appeal the appellants filed Civil Misc. Application No. 21 of 1997 for production of certain documents, copies of which were produced as Annexure PA/1 to PA/10. The documents were taken on record. A perusal of these documents shows that vide letter dated October 20, 1995, November 14, 1995 and January 12, 1996, copies of which have been produced as Annexures PA/1 to PA/3, Mr. Dharam Pal one of the appellants was called upon to appear before the Director for discussion regarding the land in dispute. The document at Annexure PA/4 is a letter dated April 16, 1992 from the Senior Town Planner to the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Haryana. In this letter, it was, inter alia acknowledged that "in this scheme the area of ownership No. 14 (which admittedly related to the appellants) was taken as 4061 Sq. Yds. against actual area of 4961 Sq. Yds. as per revenue record". It was also observed that on specific orders of the Deputy Commissioner, vide his office letter dated 16. 10,1984 the District Town Planner, Kurukshetra, had "sent amended Town Planning Scheme for unbuilt area No. l Part 4 vide his memo no. 1039, dated 30. 5. 1986 along with drawing No. DTP (KK) 371/86 dated 28. 5. 1986 and ownership statement of the owners. This scheme was finally approved technically by the Senior Town Planner, Panchkula, and directed the DTP vide Memo No. 745 dated 6. 6. 1986 to forward the T. P. Scheme for taking necessary action towards the approval of the scheme from the Government. " It was also noticed that the Municipal Committee, Thanesar, had adopted the scheme finally vide resolution No. 1044 dated 26. 7. 86. Communications to a similar effect were also sent vide letters dated July 8, 1992 (Annexure PA/5), November 5, 1992 (Annexure PA/6), memo dated December 18, 1992 (Annexure PA/7) and letter dated May 20, 1993 (Annexure PA/8 ). There after vide letter dated September 13, 1993, copy of which has been produced as Annexure PA/9, the Director, Local Bodies, Haryana, wrote to the Government in which he pointed out that the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra had informed vide letter dated May 20, 1993 that "in the scheme prepared by District Town Planner, Kurukshetra in the year 1978, only 4061 Sq. Yds, of land was shown on the plan of the scheme as against 4961 Sq. Yds. as per revenue record. " The sequence of events was noticed and it was pointed out that after getting demarcation done the Municipal Committee had passed resolution No. 1044 dated June 26, 1986. Thereafter the Committee vide resolution No. 1060 dated November 26, 1996 requested that resolution No. 1044 dated July 26, 1986 be cancelled "as it wanted to implement the scheme prepared in the year 1978. . . . . . . . It is pertinent to pint out that Thanesar Municipality has concealed these facts mentioned in para 1 of the report of the Deputy Commissioner and also in the reports sent from time to time. " It was observed that "it has been proved by demarcation that disputed land in the part of the ownership No. 14 of T. P. Scheme No. l Part 4 of Thanesar, where municipality has made Indra Municipal Park, the park falling in T. P. Scheme No. l Part 3 has been grabbed because of its implementation. " Thereafter vide letter dated June 19, 1996 the Director Local Government informed the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra that "a serious disciplinary action be taken against the official who has concealed the material facts. Because of the concealment of the true facts, the Municipal Committee, Thanesar, has wrongly passed resolution No. 1060 dated 26. 11. 86 whereby a delay has been caused in implementing the amended T. P. Scheme No. l Part 4 and the Municipal Committee has suffered financial loss. " 6. On perusal of the pleadings on the record, it has not been disputed by the counsel for the respondents that the appellants are legal heirs of Rulia Ram who was the owner of the land in dispute. Furthermore the documentary evidence on record especially the record relating to ownership indicates that land measuring 4961 Sq. Yds. belonging to Rulia Ram the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was included in the Scheme. Still further, it has been clearly established on the record by the department's own communication which has not been controverted either by filing affidavit or even at the stage of arguments that correct and material fact had been concealed at the time of passing the resolution No. 1060 dated November 26, 1986. It also established that on getting the demarcation done it was found that the land measuring 4961 Sq. Yds. belonging to the appellant had been included in the Scheme. This fact was categorically acknowledged by the Deputy Commissioner vide his letter dated October 16, 1984. 7. On the basis of the overwhelming evidence on record as noticed above, it is clear that land measuring 4961 Sq. Yds. belonging to the appellants has been included in the Scheme. That being so, the action of the respondents in proceeding on the assumption that only 4061 Sq. Yds. of land had been included and not 4961 cannot be sustained. The respondents shall proceed further on that basis. In case the respondents wish to include the entire land the appellants shall be paid compensation for the area retained by the respondents in accordance with law. They will keep in view the decision of the Supreme Court in Yoginder Pal and Ors. v. Municipality Bathinda and Ors. , 1994 (5) S. C. C. 709. In case the respondents do not wish to include the land of the appellants in the Scheme the possession shall be restored to them along with such compensation as may be admissible according to law. The resolution No. 1060 dated November 26, 1986 and the communication dated November 27, 1986, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P6 and P7, with the writ petition are quashed and the appeal is allowed. In the circumstances we make no order as to costs. .