Present: Mr. Vikas Singh Advocate and Vs. District Development and Panchayat Officer Ropar and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1139641
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-07-2014
AppellantPresent: Mr. Vikas Singh Advocate and
RespondentDistrict Development and Panchayat Officer Ropar and Another
Excerpt:
cwp no.3164 of 1997 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh date of decision:7.5.2014 1. cwp no.3164 of 1997 chuhru ram and others ….petitioners versus district development and panchayat officer, ropar and another .....respondents present: mr.vikas singh, advocate and mr.jagdev singh, advocate for the petitioners.mr.p.k.gupta, advocate for respondent no.2. ***** 2. cwp no.15404 of 1993 ram ditta and others ….petitioners versus the gram panchayat gargaba .....respondent present: mr.vikas singh, advocate and mr.jagdev singh, advocate for the petitioners.mr.p.k.gupta, advocate for respondent. ***** 3. cwp no.15593 of 1995 pritam singh and others ….petitioners versus the gram panchayat garhbhaga .....respondent present: mr.subhash aggarwal, advocate for the petitioners.mr.p.k.gupta, advocate for respondent. ***** diwakar gulati 2014.05.12 16:26 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cwp no.3164 of 1997 2 coram: hon'ble mr.justice hemant gupta hon’ble mr.justice fateh deep singh ****** hemant gupta, j.(oral) this order shall dispose of cwp nos.3164 of 1997, 15404 of 1993 and 15593 of 1995 directed in respect of the same land. the challenge in cwp no.3164 of 1997 is to an order dated 29.11.1996 (annexure p-7) passed by the collector in proceedings under section 11 of the punjab village common land (regulation) act, 1961 whereby the order dated 27.01.1981 was set aside inter-alia for the reason that the order was passed without hearing the gram panchayat and the claim of the petitioner claiming title over the land in question was dismissed. admittedly, prior to the passing of the said order, some of the aggrieved persons have filed a writ petition before this court bearing cwp no.15404 of 1993 disputing the right of gram panchayat to auction the trees standing on the land in question. in the said writ petition, the panchayat was restrained from auctioning the trees standing on the land in question on 14.12.1993. the said writ petition was later admitted for hearing on 20.01.1995. there is another writ petition bearing cwp no.15593 of 1995 filed by some other persons challenging the auction of the trees in respect of which restrain order was passed by this court in the earlier writ petition. a perusal of the pleadings of all the three writ petitions would show that the order of collector holding that the petitioners have no right, title or interest in the land in question over which trees are standing, has not been challenged by the petitioners by way of appeal though such order is appealable. the petitioners have not availed their statutory right of appeal available against the said order. the matter was pending before this court diwakar gulati 2014.05.12 16:26 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cwp no.3164 of 1997 3 even prior to the said order being passed. therefore it can be reasonably inferred that the petitioners were prosecuting the remedy before this court in a bona-fide manner. consequently, all the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the aggrieved persons to avail the right of appeal against the order dated 29.11.1996. if an appeal is filed, the commissioner under the act shall decide the appeal on merits provided the same is filed within a period of 2 months from today. (hemant gupta) judge may7 2014 (fateh deep singh) ‘d. gulati’ judge diwakar gulati 2014.05.12 16:26 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

CWP No.3164 of 1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:7.5.2014 1.

CWP No.3164 of 1997 Chuhru Ram and others ….Petitioners VERSUS District Development and Panchayat Officer, Ropar and another .....Respondents Present: Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate and Mr.Jagdev Singh, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.

***** 2.

CWP No.15404 of 1993 Ram Ditta and others ….Petitioners VERSUS The Gram Panchayat Gargaba .....Respondent Present: Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate and Mr.Jagdev Singh, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate for respondent.

***** 3.

CWP No.15593 of 1995 Pritam Singh and others ….Petitioners VERSUS The Gram Panchayat Garhbhaga .....Respondent Present: Mr.Subhash Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate for respondent.

***** Diwakar Gulati 2014.05.12 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.3164 of 1997 2 CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH ****** HEMANT GUPTA, J.(Oral) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.3164 of 1997, 15404 of 1993 and 15593 of 1995 directed in respect of the same land.

The challenge in CWP No.3164 of 1997 is to an order dated 29.11.1996 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Collector in proceedings under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Land (regulation) Act, 1961 whereby the order dated 27.01.1981 was set aside inter-alia for the reason that the order was passed without hearing the Gram Panchayat and the claim of the petitioner claiming title over the land in question was dismissed.

Admittedly, prior to the passing of the said order, some of the aggrieved persons have filed a writ petition before this Court bearing CWP No.15404 of 1993 disputing the right of Gram Panchayat to auction the trees standing on the land in question.

In the said writ petition, the Panchayat was restrained from auctioning the trees standing on the land in question on 14.12.1993.

The said writ petition was later admitted for hearing on 20.01.1995.

There is another writ petition bearing CWP No.15593 of 1995 filed by some other persons challenging the auction of the trees in respect of which restrain order was passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition.

A perusal of the pleadings of all the three writ petitions would show that the order of Collector holding that the petitioners have no right, title or interest in the land in question over which trees are standing, has not been challenged by the petitioners by way of appeal though such order is appealable.

The petitioners have not availed their statutory right of appeal available against the said order.

The matter was pending before this Court Diwakar Gulati 2014.05.12 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.3164 of 1997 3 even prior to the said order being passed.

Therefore it can be reasonably inferred that the petitioners were prosecuting the remedy before this Court in a bona-fide manner.

Consequently, all the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the aggrieved persons to avail the right of appeal against the order dated 29.11.1996.

If an appeal is filed, the Commissioner under the Act shall decide the appeal on merits provided the same is filed within a period of 2 months from today.

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE MAY7 2014 (FATEH DEEP SINGH) ‘D.

Gulati’ JUDGE Diwakar Gulati 2014.05.12 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document