GRAM PANCHAYAT, VILLAGE DHINGSARA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Gram Panchayat, Village Dhingsara-petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 16.4.1986 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fatehabad-respondent No. 3 as also order dated 21.5.1994 passed by the Collector, Hisar-respondent No. 2 (Annexures P-6 & P-7 respectively). In the aforesaid orders, the view taken by the Assistant Collector as well as the Collector is that the private respondents have been the owner in possession of the land in dispute. The operative part of the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade-respondent No. 3 in so far it is relevant, reads thus :-

(2.) THE order of the Assistant Collector has been upheld by the Collector. It is, thus, evident that categorical findings have been recorded on the basis of jamabandi for the year 1961-62, prepared at the time of consolidation and also on the basis of entries made in Sharayat Wajub-ul-Arz, where the land has been shown as "Uprahan pond", which does not bar drinking of water and that the land could not be made cultivable. The entry further clarifies that the names of the private respondents have been entered as owners in possession in the revenue record. A series of acts have been quoted in the order showing that these were the acts which could have been done only by owner and not by a person other than the owner. The first instance of this nature is that 16 Kanals of land was acquired by the State for Water Works regarding which mutation in favour of the State Government was sanctioned later on. The other illustration is that the owners have themselves sold some area which is evident from the perusal of mutation. The last illustration is that the owners have been bearing expenses regarding lining of the Khaal (water course) in respect of the land in question and that 48 Kanals of land was leased out by the owners for brick kiln. From these instances no doubt could be entertained that these are the acts which are done by an owner openly and to the knowledge of the petitioner Gram Panchayat. There is, thus, categorical finding that the land did not vest in the Gram Panchayat.

(3.) MR . S.S. Godara, learned counsel for respondent No. 69 has drawn our attention to the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jai Singh v. State of Haryana, 2003(2) RCR(Civil) 578 : (2003-2)134 PLR 658 and submitted that it is only that area of land, as laid down by the Full Bench, which may vest in the Gram Panchayat and non else. In that regard, the concluding para 62 of the judgment of the Full Bench deserve to be considered, which reads thus :-