Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P.No.15403 of 2013 Date of Decision:19.07.2013 Jagdish Lal .....Petitioner versus The Financial Commissioner Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present:- Mr.Dinesh Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
(Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved against order dated 18.6.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary cum Financial Commissioner Revenue, Haryana.
Admittedly, the petitioner is in unauthorised possession over the land measuring 83 kanals 4 marlas situated in village Kakru, Tehsil and District Ambala.
The case of the petitioner is that he has taken the land on batai(lease) from the Gram Panchayat but in the present case he has claimed for transfer of the land on the basis of his possession in view of the provisions of the Haryana Evacuee Properties (Management & Disposal) Act, 2008 which deals with the evacuee lands and has also referred to the Haryana Evacuee Properties (Management & Disposal) Rules, 2011.
His application has been dismissed by respondent No.1 on the ground that the aforesaid Act and Rules deals with the evacuee property whereas the petitioner is claiming possession over the land which vests in the Gram Panchayat.
Consequently, his application has been dismissed on the ground that neither it is maintainable not the Court concerned had the jurisdiction to Renu 2013.07.23 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P.No.15403 of 2013 -2- entertain as misconceived application.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while dismissing his application, all his remedies have been blocked to pursue his rights available to him under the other statutes.
I do not agree with the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner because the application filed by him before respondent No.1 claiming for transfer of land on the basis of his unauthorised possession was in view of the provisions of the Act and Rules which applies to the evacuee and not to the Panchayat land.
Thus in my view, respondent No.1 has rightly passed the order and dismissed his application as misconceived.
It is needless to mention that the petitioner may, if so, advised, take his other remedies in accordance with law since his application has not been entertained and dismissed as misconceived.
Disposed of.
July 19, 2013 ( RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ) renu JUDGE Renu 2013.07.23 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh