RANBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , C&S This is a petition under Rule 18 of the Rule for the Sale of Surplus Rural Evacuee Property against the order dated 3.12.1998 passed by the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the Tehsildar (Sales), Ambala made a reference on 30.1.1995 for setting aside the auction of Khasra No. 76/1 measuring 7 kanals 10 marlas situated in village Kanjnu, Tehsil Radaur, district Yamuna Nagar conducted on 27.6.1994 in favour of the present petitioner Sh. Ranbir Singh for Rs. 25,500/-. This auction was confirmed by the S.O. (Sales), Ambala on 27.7.1994. The sale deed was also issued on 8.8.1994. The Deputy Conservator of Forest, Amabala at Yamuna Nagar, however, claimed the ownership of this land vide his orders dated 23.12.1994. His contention was that as per the notification dated 11.6.1971 issued by the Government, the land in question was declared as protected forest under Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act and therefore the land belongs to the forest department. The Ld. Joint Secretary Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana after hearing the auction purchaser and after an enquiry into the matter cancelled the auction vide his orders dated 3.12.1998, on the ground that the land did not belong to the Rehabilitation Department and therefore the Tehsildar (Sales) was not competent to auction this land. The above order of the Joint Secretary Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner has been challenged by way of the present petition.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by both sides and also gone through the impugned order and other relevant records available on the file. The main dispute in this case has been whether the land in dispute belongs to the Forest Department or not. The facts on the file are that as per the revenue record the land in question belongs to the Provincial Government in the cultivating possession of P.W.D. Department. This area consists of two Khasra Nos., Khasra No. 76 measuring 49 kanals 12 marlas is 'gair Mumkin road' and khasra No. 76/1 measuring 7 kanals 10 marlas is 'bag barani'. It is this area which is under dispute. Thus as per the revenue record the State Government in the P.W.D. Department is the owner of the land. However, the P.W.D. Department has given in writing that they do not require this area as it is beyond the jurisdiction of the road boundary. How this area was identified as belonging to the Rehabilitation department as evacuee land is not clear from the file. The other aspect is that this land was enclosed for plantation vide Forest Department notification dated 11.6.1971. A copy of the notification is available on the file which reveals that all strips of government forest land or waste land on either side of the metalled roads under the control of P.W.D. Department as well as on either side of water courses of all canals under the control of the Irrigation Department were transferred to the Forest Department for management. The Saharanpur-Kurukshetra road also figures in the list. It is clear from the notification that such areas are transferred to the Forest Department for management for a specific period. It does not mean that the ownership also has been transferred. The areas remain in the ownership of the original owner, but the area remains subject to the provisions of the Forest Act and is managed by the Forest Department. Therefore, even if such areas are auctioned, that would change the ownership only and the management of the land still remains with the Forest Department subject to the provisions of the Indian Forest Act. The owner will not be permitted to carry out any activities on the land. Thus the notification only changes the management and not the ownership. It also reveals that the notification does not specify the exact area. Only the strip of land on either side of the metalled road i.e. Saharanpur-Kurukshetra road in this case has been notified. The strip of land on either side of the metalled road would normally mean the road periphery area. The khasra No. 76 is definitely the road periphery area and is covered under the notification. But it is doubtful whether the area of khasra No. 76/1 i.e. disputed area is also covered or not. Therefore, the auction cannot be cancelled on this ground. The other aspect of this case is that the land belongs to the P.W.D Department then how it was auctioned by the Rehabilitation Department. There is no denying the fact that as per the revenue record the land belongs to the Provincial Government in the P.W.D. Department. But the P.W.D. Department is not claiming this land as not required by them being beyond the jurisdiction of the road boundary. Therefore it is for the P.W.D. Department to object to the auction which they have not done. The land otherwise also belongs to the Provincial Government, may be any department. If the P.W.D. Department claims this land, the matter may be taken up at that time. In view of the aforesaid circumstances the impugned order is set aside and the petition is accepted. However, the land would remain subject to the forest laws if any. Announced. Petition accepted.