Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 2299
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
S.S. SARON, AVNEESH JHINGAN, JJ.
M/s Ruby Anand and others - Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others - Respondents
CWP No.3527 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 22-08-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Ashok Singla, Addl. AG, Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Village Common Lands – 'Shamlat deh' land, which earlier vested in the Gram Panchayat now vests with the Municipal Corporation, with the enlargement of the area of the municipality – Civil Court which to determine the question of vesting of 'Shamlat Deh' lands.
Headnote:(A) Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, S.45 – Revenue Entry – Writ Jurisdiction – Mutation – Writ challenging mutation of revenue estate – Held; mutation of properties in revenue records neither creates now extinguishes title to property nor it has any presumptive value on title – Such entries, are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue.
(B) Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, S.45 – Encroachment – In case a person is aggrieved against an entry in the revenue records, he has a remedy in terms of Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 which provides for "suit for declaratory decree by persons aggrieved by an entry in a revenue record" – Petitioner's having already availed the civil remedy, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is called for – Petition dismissed.
(C) Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, S.2 & S.13 – Shamlet Deh – Vesting of – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – As applicable to Haryana – 'Shamlat deh' land, which earlier vested in the Gram Panchayat now vests with the Municipal Corporation, with the enlargement of the area of the municipality – However, with the land merging in the Municipal Corporation, the Gram Panchayat has ceased to exist – Therefore, it is the Civil Court which is to determine the question as to whether the 'Shamlat Deh' lands vest in the Municipal Corporation or the owners. (Para 15)
S.S. SARON, J.
1. The petitioners - Ms. Ruby Anand and others are aggrieved against the order dated 18.12.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon (respondent No.5) whereby mutation No.3249 in respect of land measuring 3717 kanals, 1 marla in the revenue estate of village Gawal Pahari, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon now Gurugram has been sanctioned in favour of the Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon.
2. The petitioners' claim that they are owners of land measuring 16 kanals comprised in khewat/khata No.393/434, Rectangle No.82 khasra Nos.2/11 (13-7), 3/1 (2-13) situated in the revenue estate of village Gawal Pahari, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurugram, which is part of land measuring 3717 kanals 1 marla in respect of which the impugned mutation No.3249 has now again been sanctioned in favour of Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon.
3. It is submitted that father of the petitioners namely Justice H.L. Anand purchased the said land measuring 16 kanals vide registered sale deed dated 22.03.2006 (Annexure P-2). Mutation No.2441 (Annexure P-3) was sanctioned on 28.04.2006 in favour of Justice H.L. Anand in consequence of the said purchase. The father of the petitioners namely Justice H.L. Anand died on 24.09.2007 and mutation in respect of the said land measuring 16 kanals was sanctioned in the name of the petitioners vide mutation No.3087 (Annexure P-4) on 17.04.2012 being the sole legal heirs.
4. The effect of the sanction of the impugned mutation No.3249 (Annexure P-1) in favour of Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon is that mutation No.3110 dated 02.07.2012 (Annexure P-47), which was also in favour of Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon and had been set aside, now has been revived. Mutation No. 3110 dated 02.07.2012 (Annexure P-47) in favour of Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon had in fact been set aside by the Additional Chief Secretary and Financial Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No.2) vide order dated 15.09.2014 (Annexure P-41) passed in ROR No. 530 of 2014 titled M/s Metro Valley Business Park Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and others; ROR No. 563 of 2014 in application dated 20.08.2014 submitted by Sh. Pawan Kumar Verma and ROR No.562 of 2014 titled M/s Rathore Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. The Collector (South) Sohna, Gurgaon and others.
5. Review applications No.2, 3 and 4 of 2014 of the said order dated 15.09.2014 (Annexure P-41) were filed under Section 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 on behalf of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon. The review applications were dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana vide order dated 21.10.2015 (Annexure P-46). Therefore, according to the petitioners, the order dated 15.09.2014 (Annexure P-41) and the order dated 21.10.2015 (Annexure P-46) passed by different Financial Commissioners Revenue, Haryana had attained finality and the same were not further challenged.
6. It is submitted that a show cause notice dated 31.01.2017 (Annexure P-52) has been issued to the petitioners under Section 408-A (1) (b) of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 ('M.C. Act' – for the short) by the Joint Commissioner-III, Municipal Corporation, Gurugram (respondent No.7) exercising the powers of the competent authority under Section 408-A read with Section 2 (4A) of the M.C. Act. The act of issuing the said show cause notice is illegal; besides, being arbitrary.
7. According to the petitioners, their father had purchased the land after due diligence and the names of the vendors and their predecessors in interest were duly recorded in the revenue records. Therefore, their father was a bona fide purchaser who bought the land for valuable consideration without notice and knowledge of any alleged dispute with respect to the title of his vendors. The petitioners and their predecessor in interest since the date of purchase i.e. 22.03.2006 have been the owners and in exclusive peaceful and actual possession of the land measuring 16 kanal
