Jai Adyal And Others vs Commissioner, Gurgaon And Others on 21 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jai Adyal And Others vs Commissioner, Gurgaon And Others on 21 February, 2024

Author: Sureshwar Thakur

Bench: Sureshwar Thakur

                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023882-DB




CWP-2804-1996                        -1-          2024:PHHC:023882-DB



218         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH.


                                           CWP-2804-1996
                                           Date of Decision : 21.02.2024


JAI DAYAL (DECEASED) THROUGH LRs. AND ORS.
                                                                 .....Petitioners


                                   Versus

THE COMMISSIONER GURGAON DIVISION AND OTHERS
                                      .....Respondents

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
              HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

Present :     Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate
              for the petitioners.

              Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with
              Mr. P.P.Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana and
              Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.

                                 ****

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (Oral)

1. The plaintiffs, petitioners herein filed a declaratory suit

bearing No. 285/VCL, under the Punjab Village Common Lands

(Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable to Haryana) before the Assistant

Collector First Grade, Narnaul alleging that as per the Jamabandi for

the year 1979-80, the land consisting in Killa No.31//22/2, 23/1, 36//2,

Kitta 3, measuring 13 kanala 4 marla situated in village Thanwas is

owned and possessed by them and the respondent-Gram Panchayat has

nothing to do with its ownership.

2. Through an order made thereons, on 15.07.1991 (Annexure

P-2), the learned Assistant Collector declined the espoused declaratory

decree to the plaintiffs.

1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 01:37:04 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023882-DB

CWP-2804-1996 -2- 2024:PHHC:023882-DB

3. Feeling aggrieved thereagainst, the plaintiffs filed an

appeal before the Appellate Authority concerned. However, through an

order made on 11.01.1995 (Annexure P-3), the said appeal became

dismissed.

4. Dis-satisfied from the afore, the plaintiffs preferred

revision petition before the Revisional Court concerned. However, the

Revisional Court concerned, finding no merit in the revision petition

dismissed the same.

5. The drawing of the above concurrent orders of eviction,

have caused pain to the petitioners herein and have led them to institute

thereagainst the instant writ petition before this Court.

6. On a reading of the impugned Annexure P-2, Annexure P-

3, and, Annexure P-5, as became respectively drawn by the Assistant

Collector concerned, and, by the Collector, concerned, and, by the

Revisional Court concerned, on the apposite declaratory suit, on the

appeal, and on the revision, it is but expressly clear that all of them

were sketchily, and, cryptically drawn, thus without any issues being

struck, despite a dispute becoming raised by the plaintiffs therein vis-a-

vis their ownership and possession over the disputed lands.

7. Contrarily, it appears, that merely on a cursory reading of

the records, hence respectively through Annexures P-2, P-3, and, P-5,

the statutory authorities below, rather in a most summary manner

declining the espoused declaratory decree to the plaintiffs, nor any issue

became struck on the contentious pleadings laid before the authorities

concerned, rather it was imperative for the authorities concerned, to

2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 01:37:04 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023882-DB

CWP-2804-1996 -3- 2024:PHHC:023882-DB

formulate issues for the relevant evidence adducing onus becoming cast

upon the litigants concerned.

8. The reason for making the above conclusion stems from

the factum, that in the special statute (supra), there is no specific

procedure regulating the trial of the petitions, as become laid before the

statutory authorities constituted thereins, thereby but obviously the

procedure for regulating the entering upon trial of a motion laid under

the statute (supra) before the statutory authorities concerned, but is

regulated by the provisions as cast under the CPC.

9. The manner of adjudication being made, upon, the said

motion(s) by the statutory authorities below, is required, to be

deprecated, as it became enjoined to after inviting response(s) from the

respondent concerned, to thereafter strike issues on the contested

pleadings, and, to thereafter formulate issues whereafter it became

imperative, upon them to cast the evidence adducing onus, upon the

litigants concerned.

10. Paramountly since the above did not happen. Therefore, as

stated (supra), but in an slipshod and hasty manner besides with prima

facie, ill informed reason, the declaratory suit, appeal thereagainst and

revision petition, rather became dismissed.

11. Consequently, the petition is allowed, and, the impugned

orders Annexure P-2, P-3 and P-5 are quashed and set aside, and, the lis

is remanded to the Assistant Collector concerned, who shall on

receiving the same, shall restore the lis to its original number, and, it is

further directed that he shall after inviting a response on the said

petition/declaratory suit from the respondent concerned, to thereafter

3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 01:37:04 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023882-DB

CWP-2804-1996 -4- 2024:PHHC:023882-DB

strike issues, and to subsequently permit the aggrieved litigant(s)

concerned, to adduce evidence thereons.

12. Subsequently, a valid decision, in accordance with law,

shall be made on the said petition/declaratory suit, by the Assistant

Collector concerned, within a period of three months but after hearing

all affected persons concerned.

(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE

(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
21.02.2024 JUDGE
kavneet singh

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023882-DB

4 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 01:37:04 :::

[ad_2]

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *