Kartar And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 19729 P&H

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 19729 P&H
Judgement Date : 7 November, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kartar And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 November, 2024

Author: G.S. Sandhawalia

Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia

                             Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145355-DB




IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH

(110)                                             CWP-11700-2024
                                                  Decided on : 07.11.2024

Kartar & others                                        ......Petitioner(s)
                                         Versus

State of Haryana & others                              ......Respondent(s)


CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
        HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:     Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, Advocates for the petitioners.

             Mr.Ankur Mittal, Addl.A.G. Haryana
             Mr.Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.

                                 *****
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.(Oral)

1. Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226/227 of

the Constitution of India, is for quashing the order dated 03.09.2001

(Annexure P-5), order dated 16.12.2003 (Annexure P-6) and the order passed

in revision dated 03.07.2006 (Annexure P-7) upholding the eviction

proceedings regarding the land measuring 2 kanals 15 marlas, falling in

Khasra No.64/4/2/1.

2. It is not disputed that the petitioners had challenged the said

orders initially by filing a Civil Suit on 26.09.2006 in which he also prayed for

being declared as Biswedar and co-sharer of a larger chunk of land including

disputed land falling in Village Bhartana, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind, which

was dismissed on 14.02.2009 (Annexure P-8). However, in appeal, the

petitioner's predecessor-in-interest was successful and the suit was decreed by

the District Judge, Jind on 30.08.2010 (Annexure P-9).

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145355-DB

3. The respondent No.5-Gram Panchayat preferred RSA-4019-2011

titled Gram Panchayat of Village Bhartana Vs. Sunehri & others, before this

court and the same was allowed on 03.10.2018 by taking into consideration

the fact that under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands

(Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable to Haryaan) (for short, the 'Act'), the

Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to decide for Shamlatland. However,

liberty was given to take recourse to remedy in law seeking adjudication of

title to the suit property, in appropriate proceedings, by holding that the

authorities cannot be restrained to recover possession of land which is subject

matter of impugned orders. Relevant portion of the judgment read as under:

"Counsel for the respondent has failed to point out any document on record that has been proved in accordance with law sufficient to show that prior to filing of petition for eviction in respect of land measuring 2 kanal 15 marlas comprising khasra No.64/4/2/1, the appellant-panchayat filed eviction application qua that land and had been decided against the gram panchayat or constitutes res judicata in the present proceedings or amounts to review of earlier order in the light of judgment of Inder Singh's case (supra). In this view of the matter, it can safely be held that jurisdiction of the civil court to examine legality or otherwise of the impugned orders is clearly barred under Section 13 of the Act. Resultantly, as the orders passed by the authorities with regard to eviction of the respondent under Section 7 of the Act cannot be challenged before the civil court and the same have attained finality for want of challenge before a competent Fora, the authorities under the Act cannot be restrained to recover possession of land, subject matter of impugned orders, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed, impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court in Appeal are set aside. Suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for declaration and injunction is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, nothing stated hereinbefore, shall cause prejudice to the respondent-plaintiff to take recourse to remedy in law seeking adjudication of title of the suit property, in appropriate proceedings."

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145355-DB

4. Nothing has been brought to our notice that the petitioners have

taken recourse to file an application under Section 13-A of the Act regarding

adjudication of the land. The present writ petition has been filed after a period

of almost 6 years after the Regular Second Appeal had been dismissed

whereby the said eviction orders were subject matter of challenge. The

Learned Single Judge having dismissed the appeal and the said order having

attained finality, inter-se the parties, we do not find any ground to entertain the

present writ petition and set aside the findings recorded in the Regular Second

Appeal which cannot be reviewed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India.