Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHARTESH versus THE COMMISSIONER GURGAON DIVISION, GURGA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhartesh v. The Commissioner Gurgaon Division, Gurga - CWP-1474-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 1618 (10 March 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

Civil Writ Petition No.1474 of 2006.

Date of decision : 16.3.2006.

Bhartesh vs. The Commissioner Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and others.

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S.Narang.

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Kiran Anand Lall.

Present: Mr.Jaswant Jain,Advocate,for the petitioner.

-----

Judgment

Kiran Anand Lall,J.

On an application filed by the Municipal Committee, Narnaul (respondent no.3), through its President, under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1972, the Collector ordered the eviction of Bhartesh petitioner from the land in question,and that order was upheld by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, even in appeal.

By filing this petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of both the said orders, Annexures P3 and P4.

On the basis of evidence led by the parties, the Collector had found that the land is owned by the Municipal Committee but Bhartesh petitioner is in unauthorised possession thereof. Besides other evidence, he took into consideration the entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1989-90, Ex.P2, in which the Municipal Committee was recorded as the owner of this land. The possession over the land was reflected to be of Chajju Ram father of Bhartesh as Gair Marusi tenant, on payment of Rs.10/- per Bigha per year as Chakota. But it was found that, in fact, no Chakota was ever paid by Chajju Ram or Bhartesh. Infact, the latter Civil Writ Petition No.1474 of 2006. (2) *****

admitted before the Collector that he had never paid any "Chakota" to the Municipal Committee. His plea, rather, was that he had become owner of the land, by way of adverse possession. The Collector rightly did not believe his plea of adverse possession, as there was no declaration to this effect, by the competent court. While rejecting the plea of adverse possession, he also took into consideration the fact that according to one of the witnesses produced by Bhartesh, the land had been purchased by the latter from one Gopal, and as per the testimony of another witness also, Bhartesh had become its owner by purchase and the name of vendor was Prem Nath. In appeal, the Commissioner also re-appraised the evidence on record and upheld the eviction order, after rejecting the plea of adverse possession put forward by Bhartesh.

During arguments, we called upon the learned counsel to state as to whether the civil suit pending between the parties (referred to in para 2 of the order Annexure P4) is a title suit. Learned counsel replied in the negative and further stated that the same is for permanent injunction. If there had been any truth in the plea of adverse possession, the petitioner would have sought a declaration of his title from the Civil Court and would not have felt satisfied by claiming the relief of permanent injunction simpliciter, only. This fact had also rightly weighed with the Commissioner while rejecting the plea of adverse possession.

The two judgments Banwari vs. The State of Haryana and others 1983 PLJ 6 and Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and another AIR 1982 SC 1081, referred to by the learned counsel, also do not help him. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was already in possession of the land when the Municipal Committee became its owner. As such, Banwari's case has no applicability to the facts of this case. Similarly, since the Civil Writ Petition No.1474 of 2006. (3) *****

revenue record clearly shows the Municipal Committee to be owner of the land, there was no complicated question of title involved in the case. Therefore, the case of Thummala Krishna Rao also has no applicability to the case in hand.

Since the Municipal Committee had been proved to be owner of the land and the petitioner failed to prove as to under what authority/ capacity he had been continuing in its possession, no fault can be found with the impugned eviction orders, passed by the Collector and the Commissioner. The petition shall, accordingly, stand dismissed, in limine.

(Kiran Anand Lall)

Judge.

16.3.2006. (J.S.Narang)

vs. Judge.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.