The omission of provisions regarding ownership rights over lands affected by river action was declared unconstitutional, violating property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

In the instant writ petition, the petitioners seek the quashing of the notification dated 7.12.2020, issued vide Haryana Act No. 30 of 2020 to the extent that item (i) of Clause (g) of Section 2, as carried in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961') became therebys omitted vide the impugned Act. The petitioners also seek quashing of the impugned order dated 15.6.2007, passed by the Collector concerned, and, the order dated 31.3.2008 passed by the Commissioner concerned, as well as the orders dated 19.12.2012, and, dated 23.1.2019, as, passed by the Financial Commissioner concerned, wherebys the suit filed by the petitioners under Section 13-A of the Act of 1961 has been dismissed.

2. It is averred in the petition (supra), that the petitioners, and, other proprietors of the village are the owners in possession of the total land measuring 1316 kanals-14 marlas of village Rehawar, Tehsil and District Panchkula, and, the said land belongs to the village proprietary body, and, a revenue entry of makbuja malkan with respect to the same is also recorded. It is further averred thereins, that the land in dispute is subjected to river action of river Tangri, and, the said fact has been depicted in the revenue record as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Araji Khewat.

3. It is further averred thereins, that the petitioners preferred a suit under Section 13-A of the Act of 1961 before the Collector concerned. However, the said suit became dismissed through an order made thereons on 15.6.2007. The said order was challenged in an appeal raised before the Commissioner concerned, which was also dismissed vide order dated 31.3.2008. Being aggrieved from the concurrently made orders, the petitioners filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, which was also dismissed vide order dated 19.12.2012.

4. Though, before the statutory authorities below, the petitioners claim, that the suit land became subjected to river action, and, as such they were entitled to receive the ownership qua alluvion deposits, as became made on the disputed lands. Though, issues No. 1 and 2, issues whereof become extracted hereinafter, became also formulated in respect of the said pleaded, and, contested facts.

"(i) Whether petitioners are owner in possession of the land in question and this land does not fall within the definition of shamlat deh and the same does not vest in the gram panchayat ? OPP

(ii) Whether the land in dispute is subjected to river action and if yes then whether the same is covered by exception clause (u) of Section 2(g) ?"

5. However, the statutory authorities below concluded, that the suit lands are not reflected to be owned by any specific individual cultivators, nor also any evidence existed on record to display, that the present petitioners were owning lands abutting river Tangri, and, that on account of change of course of river Tangri, immense alluvion deposits became made on such adjunct lands, besides with the best cogent evidence comprised in the consolidation records, rather also not existing on record, thus reflecting that the petitioners were thus in terms of the relevant savings clauses to the definition of shamlat deh, hence amenable to become declared to become entitled to allotments of alluvion deposits made on lands adjunct to river Tangri. Moreover, nor when any cogent evidence became adduced suggestive, that on such lands adjoining river Tangri, thus alluvion deposits occurred on account of change in course of the said river. Resultantly, though concurrent findings against the petitioners became recorded against the petitioners. However, in view of this Court negating the constitutional vires of the omitted clause there by this Court deems it fit, and, appropriate to after quashing the impugned verdicts, permit the petitioners to adduce the best evidence in respect of (a) that in terms of relevant revenue records, they own lands adjunct to river Tangr