Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Baljit Singh etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-7873-2000 [2006] RD-P&H 8273 (10 October 2006)


CM No. 13424 of 2005 and

Civil Writ Petition No. 7873 of 2000

Date of decision : 13.10.2006.


Parties Name

Baljit Singh etc.

................ Petitioners


State of Haryana and others


Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal Present: Sh. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Sh. D.P. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No. 1 to 4.

Sh. S.P. Singh, Advocate for respondent No.5.


S.N. Aggarwal, J.

This application was filed by respondent No.5 for disposing of this petition in terms of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this court on 13.3.2003 in the case titled as Jai Singh vs. State of Haryana (CWP No. 5877 of 1992).

The facts of the case are that the petitioners are proprietors of village Shahpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala. They were the share holders as well as the cultivators of the land shown as Mustarka Malkan in the village. Consolidation proceedings had taken place in

1957. During consolidation pro-rata cut was applied and the land was shown as Bachat land and the ownership by way of mutation was transferred in favour of Gram Panchayat. The said mutation has been challenged by filing the writ petition.

Respondents No. 2 to 4 in the written statement admitted that at the time of consolidation, Mustarka Malkan Khewat was constituted by deducting the land of proprietors. Respondent-Gram Panchayat has also filed the written statement. Although it was pleaded that the land was left for the common purpose of the residents of the village, but no such purpose is discernible from the jamabandi.

Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.5 agree that this case is covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Jai Singh vs. State of Haryana (CWP No. 5877 of 1992) decided on 13.3.2003. Para 62 (iii) and 62 (iv) of the Full Bench judgment read as under :-

"62 (iii) the lands which have been contributed by the proprietors on the basis of pro-rata cut on their holdings imposed during the consolidation proceedings and which have not been earmarked for any common purpose in the consolidation scheme prepared under section 14 read with Rules 5 and 7 and entered in the column of ownership as Jumla Mustarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat and in the column of possession with the proprietors, shall not vest the Gram Panchayat or the State Government, as the case may be, on the dint of sub- section (6) of Section 2 (g) and the explanation appended thereto or any other provisions of the Act of 1961 or the Act of 1948;

(iv) all such lands, which have been, as per the consolidation scheme, reserved for common purpose, whether utilised or not, shall vest with the State Government or the Gram Panchayat, as the case may be, even though in the column of ownership the entries may be Jumla Mustarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat etc."

In the present case, admittedly, the land has been deducted from the land of the proprietors by applying the pro-rata cut. It is not earmarked for a common purpose. Nor it is being used for a common purpose. Therefore, the learned counsel for the parties agree that this petition is governed by the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported above.

Accordingly, this petition is accepted and the mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat is set aside. The suit land shall go back to the proprietors for which they would file an application before the revenue authorities, who will determine the respective share of individual proprietors.

This petition is, accordingly, accepted in the terms stated above.

( S.N.Aggarwal )





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


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 |

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