IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
L.P.A. No. 111 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: March 3,2009
Paras Nath ................................................................................ Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Collector, Mahendergarh
and others ............................................................................... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present: Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate
for the appellant.
....
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.
The appellant has prayed for quashing the orders passed by the Collector
District Mahendergath and the Commissioner Gurgaon Division Gurgaon who have
remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade for deciding the application
filed by the Gram Panchayat for ejectment of the petitioner. The appellant has also
prayed for quashing the order dated 5.2.2009 vide which the learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition.
Brief facts of the case are that on 29.12.1993, Gram Panchayat village
Niamatpur, Tehsil Narnaul District Mahendergarh filed an application under section
7 of the Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,1961 (for short “the Act”) before
the Assistant Collector 1st Grade for ejectment of the appellant herein. The said
application was dismissed by an ex-parte order dated 18.7.1994. Appeal against the
same was dismissed by the Collector by order dated 31.10.1995. However, the
L.P.A. No. 111 of 2009 (O&M) [ Page
numbers ]
Commissioner accepted the revision and remanded the case to the Assistant
Collector on 23.1.1996 for deciding the same afresh after hearing both the
parties. Assistant Collector again passed order of ejectment on 25.10.1996.
The Collector accepted the appeal and remanded the case back to Assistant
Collector by order dated 8.8.1998 holding that question of title is involved,
therefore the Assistant Collector should first decide the title and then
proceed further. This time the Assistant Collector dismissed the ejectment
application of the Gram Panchayat on 29.6.1999. The appeal against this
order was dismissed by Collector on 23.5.2000. In revision, the
Commissioner by order dated 24.8.2001 set aside the orders dated 29.6.1999
and 23.5.2000 passed by the Assistant Collector and Collector respectively.
The Commissioner remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector with a
direction that question of title be decided afresh. The Assistant Collector
dismissed the application on 13.11.2002. The Collector, however, accepted
the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat and again remanded the case back to
the Assistant Collector on 20.5.2003 for deciding the question of title. This
order was impugned in appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner
by order dated 13.1.2005 held that remand order of District Collector is not
valid. Further the case was remanded to the District Collector to see whether
the decision of the Assistant Collector dated 13.11.2003 is valid or not. On
the basis of this remand order the Collector accepted the appeal filed by the
Gram Panchayat on 28.12.2005 and directed the Assistant Collector to
decide the same afresh on the basis of some directions. Revision against the
same was also dismissed on 26.5.2006.
Appellant herein aggrieved by both the orders, challenged them
by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The learned Single Judge
L.P.A. No. 111 of 2009 (O&M) [ Page
numbers ]
after hearing the parties dismissed the writ petition holding as under:-
“Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Commissioner
could not have directed the Assistant Collector, the manner in
which he is to decide and otherwise also, no case of remand is
made out. It may be noticed that Commissioner has directed
the Assistant Collector to see the old Khasra numbers and their
owners/cultivators to compare it with the new Khasra numbers
to see whether the disputed land would vest in Panchayat or
not. It is also noticed by the Commissioner that the finding that
the land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat cannot be held to
be valid till this exercise is done. Since the case has only been
remanded and the counsel for the petitioner has not been able
to point out any infirmity which would call for any interference
in this part of the direction given by the Commissioner, I am
not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Apparently,
this exercise would lead to concluding the case one way or the
other in a better manner. No exception, thus, can be taken to
the observation made by the Commissioner. The prayer for
setting aside the order of remand cannot be accepted and is
rejected. The parties through their counsel are directed to
appear before the Assistant Collector on 2.3.2009. The parties
would be entitled to raise all the relevant pleas before him.”
Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has filed the present
LPA.
The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that
once the Assistant Collector held that the land in dispute is not shamlat deh,
L.P.A. No. 111 of 2009 (O&M) [ Page
numbers ]
it was not open for the Collector in appeal and Commissioner in revision to
remand the case back to the Assistant Collector with a direction to see
which new Khasra numbers were allotted at the time of consolidation in lieu
of old Khasra numbers and to see its ownership and prayed for setting aside
the order of the learned Single Judge.
After thoughtful consideration of the case we do not find any
merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant.
The short point involved in the matter is whether the Collector
in appeal and the Commissioner in revision could direct the Assistant
Collector to see the old Khasra numbers and compare it with new Khasra
numbers and find out whether the disputed land would vest in Panchayat or
not, when the Assistant Collector has already held that the land is not
shamlat deh within the meaning of the Act.
In our view such a direction and decision thereon would only
aid in deciding the issue completely and effectively. Thus, there is no
infirmity in the orders of remand. Accordingly, the order of the learned
Single Judge does not call for any interference. Therefore, the present LPA
is dismissed.
( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA )
JUDGE
( NIRMALJIT KAUR )
JUDGE
3.3.2009
rupi