ARJUN DEV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS herein, residents of Main Bazar, Kaithal, filed this writ petition through their General Attorney Arjun Dev, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of order dated 20. 9. 1996, Annexure P6 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal.

(2.) THE petitioners purchased land measuring 1 kanal 7 marlas from one Dharam Pal son of Dila Ram vide registered sate deed dated 10. 12. 1990 The land purchased by them was originally situated in Patti Gadar, Tehsil Kaithal and was later on brought within the Municipal limits of Kaithal and converted in Plot Nos. 281/9 and 282/9. With a view to raise construction over the land the petitioners submitted a building plan to the Municipal Committee, Kaithal for sanction. The building plan was rejected by the Municipal Committee, Kaithal by order dated 17. 9. 1991, Annexure PI. Aggrieved by the order of rejection, the petitioners filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal who after hearing learned counsel for the parties, by his order dated 20. 1. 1992, Annexure P2, set aside the order dated 17. 9. 1991 and remanded the matter back to the Municipal Committee, Kaithal with a direction that a fresh decision regarding the ownership of the disputed land and sanctioning or non-sanctioning of the site plan be taken after going through the revenue records after 1960-61 and the house tax record of the Municipal Committee, as in his opinion the order dated 17. 9. 1991 was defective inasmuch as the same has been passed without considering the relevant records. The Municipal Committee, Kaithal re-considered the matter and ultimately sanctioned the site plan by its resolution dated 5. 12,1992, Annexure P3 subject to certain conditions referred to in the resolution.

(3.) IN response to notice of motion, respondents have put in appearance and filed reply. In the preliminary objection, it is stated that the resolution dated 5. 12. 1992 passed by the Municipal Committee is vague as it was passed only to accommodate Arjun Dev who was one of the members of the Committee during the relevant time. It was further stated that the land in question is a part of a religious Tirath "bidhkyar" and thus its sanctity is required to be maintained. It was also stated that as per the revenue record relating to the period 1906-07 to 1960-61, land measuring 73 kanals and 18 marlas including the land purchased by the petitioners was in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat and it was being used as a common pond. The ownership of this land was later changed as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Jar Khewat and therefore, the landowners of this revenue estate are now the co-sharers of this common land. It was further stated that as per the consolidation scheme of the village, all the common lands left for common use, viz ponds, roads and burial grounds cannot be partitioned by the co-sharers and their use also cannot be changed. The further stand in the reply is that the land in question is shamlat deh and the petitioners only purchased the rights of co-sharers of that land.