IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.3887 of 2012 (O & M)
Date of Decision: 23.10.2013
Parveen Kumar
..Petitioner
Versus
Karam Singh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. R.K.Arya, Advocate,
for the respondents.
Mr. C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab.
PARAMJEET SINGH, J.(Oral)
Allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Counter- affidavit of the petitioner along with Annexure A-1 is taken on record. Instant civil revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.05.2012 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur whereby appeal filed by respondents no.1 to 3-defendants against the order dated 25.02.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Pathankot vide which application moved by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "the Code") was allowed, has been accepted.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining respondents no.1 to 3- defendants from interfering in the peaceful cultivating possession of the petitioner over the suit property. Along with the suit, the petitioner also filed application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code which was allowed vide order dated 25.02.2010 passed by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, the respondents preferred an appeal before learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 16.05.2012 and the order dated 25.02.2010 passed by the trial Court has been set aside. Hence, this revision petition.
It is the case of the petitioner that he has been in possession of the suit property since 1995 and paying the rent to the Government. The petitioner has applied to the Government for allotment of this land being unemployed Scheduled Caste. Earlier one Mamta Rani filed a suit through respondent no.2 as G.P.A claiming ownership of the suit property which was dismissed in default on 07.08.1996. Respondents no.1 to 3 are strangers to the suit property and they have no right, title or interest in the suit property.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From the perusal of record, it is clear that suit property vests in the Punjab Government, Department of Rehabilitation and it is a gair mumkin darya (river) as per copy of jamabandi for the year 2011-12 and copy of khasra girdawari for the year 2012-13. In some parts of suit land, cultivation has been shown. The recent report has been placed on record by the State of Punjab, which was impleaded as a party vide order dated 25.07.2013 passed by this Court. As per the report, due to heavy rain and flow of water released from Jammu and Kashmir, the flood has caused damage to village Channi Gujjran. It appears that the unauthorized possession of the petitioner over the suit property which is an occasional river is creating problems. Such a person is not entitled to any relief. In Jagpal Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 2011 (1) R.C.R (Civil) 912, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"22. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and these must be Kumar Parveen 2013.10.28 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.3887 of 2012 restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of the villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land."
In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
Dismissed.
However, State Government, Punjab is directed to take appropriate action for removal of encroachment from the suit property i.e. gair mumkin darya (river).
No comments:
Post a Comment