JOGINDER SINGH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners by way of the present petition seek quashing of the order dated 12.6.2009 (Annexure-P.8) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra (respondent No. 1).

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that they are descendants and successors-in-interest of the original allottees of land situated in the revenue estate of Village Karah, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. The names of predecessors-in-interest, it is submitted, are as per Jamabandi for the year 1956-57. The ancestors and predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners were settled in Village Karah from their village in Amritsar District. This was done in implementation of the Government of India policy of "Grow More Food Campaign". It is submitted that vast areas of shamlat lands were under wild forests on account of untamed waters of rivers Tangri and Markanda which used to stagnate in the land for months. Village Karah also had vast shamlat lands on which flood water of seasonal rivers/rivulets, namely, Tangri and Markanda stagnated for months on end. The shamlat land was not cultivated by any proprietor/proprietors of the village because it was barren; besides, it was infested with wild boars, herds of 'Neel Gais' (Nilgai), monkeys and poisonous snakes and other reptiles. The ancestors/predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners made the land cultivable and also constructed residential houses. The petitioners/their predecessors-in-interest paid an amount of Rs. 5 per acre per annum in the account of the Panchayat which was maintained with the Cooperative Bank, Cheeka, District Kurukshetra in terms of the lease. However, the Gram Panchayat and the original proprietors of the village became greedy and asked the petitioners to vacate the lands which had been made cultivable by continuous efforts of the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest. The Gram Panchayat started refusing to accept the deposit of rent and grant any receipt for the same. On 2.11.1977, the Gram Panchayat, Karah filed an application under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, (as applicable in the State of Haryana) ('Act' - for short) seeking eviction of the petitioners from various parcels of land under their possession. The said applications were allowed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kaithal in terms of similar orders dated 30.1.1979. The petitioners filed separate appeals against the said orders passed by the learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade. These were dismissed in terms of similar orders dated 8.5.1979 passed by the Collector, Kurukshetra. Copies of the said orders, it is alleged, were not supplied to the petitioners despite applications for grant of copies made in this regard. The petitioners, therefore, filed writ petitions in this Court (i.e. CWP Nos. 1707 to 1731 of 1979 and CWP No. 2165 of 1979) assailing the non-speaking orders passed by the Collector and Assistant Collector, Kurukshetra. The said petitions were decided by this Court vide order dated 14.11.1979 (Annexure-P.2) passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohinder Singh v. Collector, Kurukshetra District (CWP No. 1707 of 1979). The orders that were impugned in the said writ petition were quashed. However, it was held that the quashing of the order would not preclude the Gram Panchayat from initiating any fresh proceedings for the eviction of the petitioners in accordance with law. It is alleged that another attempt was made in the year 1981 by the Gram Panchayat, Karah to seek ejectment of the petitioners in terms of Section 7 (2) of the Act. It is submitted that the authorities under the Act accepted the application of the Gram Panchayat holding that there was a 20 years lease in terms of which the petitioners had been given possession of the land and on the expiry of the same their possession had become unauthorized rendering them liable for eviction. The orders that were passed were challenged by the petitioners in this Court by way of a writ petition (CWP No. 3486 of 1981) which was allowed on 6.11.1990 (Annexure-P.3). It was held by this Court that the authorities under the Act were clearly precluded from holding otherwise than what was held by this Court in Mohinder Singh's case (supra) vide order dated 14.11.1979 (Annexure-P.2). As such, the petitioners did not hold the land under any lease for a fixed period of time. This being so their ejectment on the ground that the period of lease had expired could not be countenanced. Further, it was not suggested that the petitioners were liable for ejectment on any other ground. This being so, the impugned orders of ejectment, it was held, could not be sustained. Thereafter, to seek ejectment of the petitioners from the land in dispute another attempt was made by the Gram Panchayat Karah in the year 1992-93. The petitioners received notices in 59 applications seeking their ejectment. They raised preliminary objection of res judicata before the Assistant Collector Grade-I, which was decided against the petitioners. Against the order passed by the Assistant Collector, the petitioners came to this Court. A Division Bench of this Court, however, vide order dated 17.8.1993 relegated them to the alternative remedy of appeal before the Collector. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector which was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed CWP No. 9785 of 1993 titled Anoop Singh and others v. Gram Panchayat Village Karah and others in this Court which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.4.1994 (Annexure-P.4). It was held that there was no written instrument of lease and the alleged lease was created by the State Government before the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and the Rules framed there under came into force. It was held that in various decisions to which a reference was made, the petitioners were in possession as lessees and the lease in their favour had not been determined according to law. It is submitted that the Gram Panchayat Karah again filed an application for seeking eviction of the petitioner Mohinder Singh and others from the land in dispute without complying with the directions as contained in the judgment dated 5.4.1994 (Annexure-P.4) passed by this Court. The said application of the Gram Panchayat Karah was resisted by the petitioners inter alia on the ground of it being barred by the principles of res judicata. Assistant Collector Grade-I- cum-District Revenue Officer, Kurukshetra vide order dated 6.2.1996 (Annexure-P.5) held the applications to be not maintainable and rejected the same. The Gram Panchayat Karah was directed to file suit for eviction after complying with the directions of this Court. The proprietors of the village, it is submitted, again made applications for seeking eviction of the petitioners through Harish Singh, Avtar Singh, Balkar Singh and Sukhbir Singh. The application made by the said four persons was registered as case Nos. 72/SDO to 136/SDO. The said 70 cases, it is submitted, were decided by the Assistant Collector Grade-I, Pehowa by a common order dated 25.10.2002 (Annexure-P.6). It was held that the cases were not competent and dismissed on account of orders passed by this Court in CWP No. 9785 of 1993 decided on 5.4.1994 (Annexure-P.4). The respondents No. 4 to 9 then filed CWP No. 16665 of 2007 in this Court against the said order. It is alleged that various wrong averments were made in the said petition; besides, there was suppression of material facts. The petitioners filed reply to the said writ petition and denied the averments. A Division Bench of this Court in terms of order dated 27.2.2009 (Annexure-P.7) disposed of the said writ petition and directed the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra (respondent No. 1) to look into the matter and ascertain as to what were the terms and conditions under which possession of the land was transferred in favour of the private respondents (now petitioners) and whether the State Government was justified in transferring the land by way of lease which was under ownership of the Gram Panchayat to private respondents. It was directed that after ascertaining the facts if the Deputy Commissioner was satisfied that the lease was created in favour of the private respondents he shall ask the Gram Panchayat to terminate and determine that lease in accordance with the provisions of law. After terminating the lease, if any, the Gram Panchayat was directed to file an ejectment application against the private respondents (now petitioners). This exercise was to be started by making a reference to the official documents in possession of the State Government. The private respondents (now petitioners) were directed to produce any document in proof of creation of leases in their favour. It is contended that the order dated 25.10.2002 (Annexure-P.6) passed by the Assistant Collector Grade-I, Pehowa itself suffers from various infirmities including the acceptance of incorrect facts stated by respondents No. 4 to 9 who were petitioners in the case of Molu Ram and others v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 16665 of 2007 decided on 27.2.2009 (Annexure-P.7). It is submitted that various preliminary objections raised by the present petitioners who were respondents No. 7 to 79 were not adverted to; besides, four consistent attempts made by the Gram Panchayat on four different occasions were ignored. The orders passed by the Assistant Collector Grade-I were not taken into account. Moreover, the petitioners were purportedly claiming a right to invoke public interest litigation and in the course of the said attempt had made deliberate misstatement of facts; besides, suppressed the facts. It was further ignored that the writ petition in Molu Ram's case, CWP No. 16665 of 2007 decided on 27.2.2009 (Annexure-P.7), was not in public interest but was in private interest of respondents No. 4 to 9. In any case, it is submitted that the orders dated 27.2.2009 (Annexure-P.7) passed in Molu Ram' case have not been complied with by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra while passing the impugned order dated 12.6.2009 (Annexure-P.8). It is submitted that the orders Annexures-P.1 to P.5, the orders including Annexures-P.2 to P.4 that were passed by this Court, were submitted before the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra (respondent No. 1) on behalf of the petitioners, however, the same were not given due consideration. The order dated 12.6.2009 (Annexure-P.8) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra (respondent No. 1) is assailed in the present petition.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest came in possession of the land in Village Karah in consequence of the Government of India Scheme of "Grow More Food Campaign". Vast tracts of shamlat land were lying vacant on which flood water of seasonal rivers/rivulets of Tangri and Markanda stagnated. The shamlat land was not cultivated and was infested by animals at that time. The predecessors-in- interest of the petitioners made the land cultivable by cultivating it. According to the petitioners, now the original proprietors of the village had become greedy and were asking the petitioners to vacate the lands. They had in fact paid an amount of Rs. 5/- per acre per annum which was deposited in the account of the Gram Panchayat which account was maintained with the Cooperative Bank, Cheeka, District Kurukshetra in terms of the lease. There has been litigation with respect to the said land. The Gram Panchayat Karah filed an application under Section 7(2) of the Act seeking eviction of the petitioners from various parcels of land under their possession. The applications were allowed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kaithal vide similar orders dated 30.1.1979. The appeals against the same were dismissed by the learned Collector vide orders dated 8.5.1979. The copies of the orders were not supplied to the petitioners despite their filing applications for the same. In any case, Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1707 to 1731 of 1979 and Civil Writ Petition No. 2165 of 1979 were filed in this Court assailing the orders of the Collector and Assistant Collector, Kurukshetra. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohinder Singh v. Collector, Kurukshetra District (CWP No. 1707 of 1979) decided on 14.11.1979 (Annexure-P.2) quashed the order of the Collector and the Assistant Collector, Kurukshetra. It was, however, held that the quashing of the orders would not preclude the Gram Panchayat from initiating any fresh proceedings for the eviction of the petitioners in accordance with law. The Gram Panchayat, Karah in 1981 filed an application in terms of Section 7 (2) of the Act seeking ejectment of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the authorities under the Act accepted the application of the Gram Panchayat holding that there was a 20 years lease under which the petitioners had been given possession of the land and on the expiry of the same their possession had become unauthorized rendering them liable for eviction. The said orders it is contended were challenged in the case of Tara Singh and others v. State of Haryana (CWP No. 3486 of 1981). This Court vide order dated 6.11.1990 (Annexure-P.3) placed reliance on the observations made in Mohinder Singh's case (supra). It is further contended that this Court held that the authorities under the Act by their impugned order accepted the application for eviction by holding that there was a 20 years lease under which the petitioners had been given possession of the land and on the expiry thereof their possession had become unauthorized rendering them liable for eviction. It was observed that the error in law in recording the said finding was writ large as when the matter had come up earlier in Mohinder Singh's case (supra), the point directly and substantially in issue was whether or not the petitioners held the land under a lease for a fixed period. It is submitted that a definite finding was also recorded that the petitioners did not hold the land under any lease. The said finding was rendered finally and it could not, therefore, be re-opened or a contrary finding given in any subsequent proceedings even by the production of a lease deed entered into between the parties. It was observed that in other words on the principle analogous to res judicata the authorities under the Act were clearly precluded from holding otherwise than what was held by this Court in Mohinder Singh's case (supra). This being so their ejectment on the ground that the period of lease had expired could not be countenanced. It had not been suggested that the petitioners were at all liable for ejectment on any other ground. This being so, the impugned order of ejectment against the petitioners, it was held, cannot be sustained and were accordingly set aside.