Mahender Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) CM-748-LPA-2024 in LPA-322-2024
 

   


   The prayer in the present application is for placing on record the sale deed as Annexure A-1. LPA-322-2024 (O&M) LPA-312-2024 (O&M) Keepingoinoviewotheoavermentsomentionedoinotheoapplication,othe sameoisoallowed.oCopyoofosaleodeedoasoAnnexureoA-1oisootakenoonorecord sub ectotooallo ustoexceptions.o LPA-322-2024 LPA-323-2024 LPA-312-2024

¶1!yothisocommonoorder,oaosetoofoappeals,otheodetailsoofowhich haveobeenoogivenoinotheoheading,oareobeingodisposedoofoasoallotheothreeoappeals involveotheosameo"uestionoofolawoonosimilarofacts.o oFor the sake of convenience, facts are drawn from CWP-323-2024.

¶2In the present appeal, challenge is to the judgment dated

17.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 7809 of 1988, by which, the claim raised by the appellants that the order dated 29.04.1988 (Annexure P-4) passed by Joint Secretary (Reh.)-cum-Settlement Commissioner Haryana is incorrect, has been rejected by the learned Single Judge.

¶3Learned counsel for the appellants argues that in year 1985, the land measuring 91 kanal, 14 marla was transferred in favour of late sh. Sohan Lal i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein, which transfer has been reviewed by the Joint Secretary (Reh.)-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana while passing the impugned order dated 29.04.1988 (Annexure P-4) on the ground that on the date when land measuring 91 kanal 14 marla was transferred in the name of late sh. Sohan Lal in the year 1985, he was already the owner of land measuring 38 kanal 02 marla, hence, he could not have been allotted the lan measuring 91 kanal 14 marla in his favour under the policy dated 25.08.1981 issued by the Government. RIYA 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that affidavit LPA-322-2024 (O&M) LPA-312-2024 (O&M) LPA-323-2024 (O&M)

dated 09.01.1973 which is being treated as false, was filed by late Sh. Sohan Lal stating that at the said that time, he did not owned any land except 10-1/2 acres of land allotted by provincial government and he only became the owner of land measuring 38 kanal 2 marla on the basis of suit for declaration passed by the competent court of Law in the year 1979 and therefore, the affidavit dated 09.01.1973 was given by late sh. Sohan Lal prior in time, hence, while considering the application filed by late Sh. Sohal Lal in the year 1981, the land has already been allotted in his favour in 1985, the same could not have been withdrawn on the basis of the fact that an affidavit filed has already been filed by late Sh. Sohan Lal in the year 1973, which fact has been ignored by the authorities concerned while passing the order dated

29.04.1988 (Annexure P-4) as well as order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶5We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the case file with his able assistance.

¶6It may be noticed that after the filing of the affidavit by late Sh. Sohan Lal in the year 1973, in the year 1975, certain land was allotted in favour of late Sh. Sohan Lal but, the said allotment was set-aside by the Financial Commissioner in year 1981, which order was challenged by late Sh. Sohan Lal by filing of CWP No. 5186 of 1981 and the cancellation of the allotment of the land by the Financial Commissioner was upheld by this Court and the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated

12.03.1982. The relevant portion of the said order dated 12.03.1982 passed by this Court is as under:- "After the passing the order (Annexure P3) dated 11.9.1981, all LPA-322-2024 (O&M) LPA-312-2024 (O&M) LPA-323-2024 (O&M)

the petitioners filed applications before the Tehsildar, Sales, Rohtak on 16.9.81. A persual of those applications which are Annexures R1 to R4 to the petition shows that the petitioners had accepted the correctness of the order Annexure P.3. In these applications, they made averments for the giving up of their claim of possession prior to 1960 and that they wanted their case to be considered again. As the petitioners had moved applications to the concerned authorities after the impugned orders, we feel that they are not competent to challenge the order Annexure P.3. They should pursue those application, which shall be decided in accordance with law and the instructions governing the case of transfer of such lands. On examining the merits of the case, we do not find anything worth consideration. Dismissed, with no order as to costs. March 12,1982 Sd/- Kulwant Singh Tiwana. Sd/- B. S. Yadav, Judge."

¶7The said order further was challenged by late Sh. Sohal Lal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by way of filing of Special Leave petition, which petition was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

¶8A bare perusal of the order dated 12.03.1982 passed by this Court shows that the liberty was given to late Sh. Sohan Lal to pursue his application filed for allotment of land in the year 1981. In pursuance to the said application, the allotment of certain land was made in favour of late Sh. Sohan Lal in the year 1985 by taking into consideration his earlier affidavit LPA-322-2024 (O&M) LPA-312-2024 (O&M) was given in the year 1973 to the effect that, he did not own any land. Nothing evident has come on record to show that the fact with regard to the allotment of land in favour of late Sh. Sohan Lal in the year 1979 through a civil suit was mentioned by late Sh. Sohan Lal while making the application in the year 1981 so as to prove his entitlement for the allotment of land.

¶9It is a conceded position that as per the policy/instructions of the Government dated 25.08.1981, in case, the claimant is already a land owner, he cannot allotted land, whereas, in the year 1985, late Sh. Sohan Lal was already owner of 38kanal 2 marla of land allotted to him in 1979. A complaint was made that the allotment of land in favour of Late Sh. Sohan Lal was incorrect as he was already the owner of land measuring 38 kanal 02 marlas, which is equivalent to 4-12 standard acres and keeping in view the totality of circumstances that the land was allotted in the favour of Late Sh. Sohan Lal in the year 1985 on the basis of his earlier affidavit filed in the year 1973 as after the filing of the said affidavit in 1973 , late Sh. Sohan Lal became the owner of land measuring 38 kanals 02 marlas in the year 1979, which fact was withheld from the authorities concerned while getting allotment of land in the year 1985 in pursuance to his application filed in the year 1981. Ultimately, the allotment of land measuring 91 kanal 14 marla in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants in 1985 was reviewed and the said allotment was cancelled vide order dated 29.04.1988 (Annexure P-4). The said action cannot be treated as arbitrary and illegal in any manner. 1#. $toisoaoconcededopositionothatoinoviewoofotheoorderopassedobyothis Courtoinotheoyearo1%&1,ooapplicationofiledobyolateo'h.o'ohano(aloinotheoyear 1%&1ooforoallotmentoofocertainolandowasotoobeoconsidered.oo)heofactualoposition LPA-322-2024oo(O&M) LPA-312-2024oo(O&M) LPA-323-2024oo(O&M) -6-oo withoregardotootheolandoownedobyoLateoSh.oSohanoLaloowasotoobeoseenofromothe dateoofotheoapplicationowhichowasoofiledobyolateoSh.oSohanoLaloooinotheoyear 1981oandoitoisooalsooaoconcededoopositionobeforeothisoCourtothatopriorotoothe filingoofotheosaidoapplicationooinotheoyearo1981,olateoSh.oSohanoLalobecameothe owneroofolandoomeasuringo38okanalo02omarlaowhichofactowasoonotobroughtoto theonoticeoofotheoauthoritiesoconcernedowhenotheolandowasooallottedotoohimoin theoyearo1985owhichowasosubsequentlyowithdrawnobyotheoimpugnedoorder datedo29.04.1988.oThatobeingoso,otheoassertionoofotheoappellantothatothe affidavitoofotheoyearo1973,oshouldohaveobeenotakenointooaccountoforodeciding quaotheoapplicationofiledooinotheoyearo1981,ocannotobeoaccepted.oOnce,oonly theoapplicationofiledobyolateoSh.oSohanoLalooinootheoyearo1981,owhichoowasooto beoconsideredoandopriorotootheosaidoapplication,olateoSh.oSohanoLalohad alreadyobecomeotheoowneroofolandomeasuringo38okanalo02o omarla,othe impugnedooordersopassedobyotheoauthoritiesoconcernedoasowelloasotheoolearned SingleoJudge,ocannotobeotreatedoasoperverseotootheofactsooroevidenceoavailable onorecord.o 11 Further,oonobeingoaskedoasotoowhetheroSh.oSohanoLalobecameoothe owneroofolandomeasuringo38okanalo02omarlaoonotheobasisoofodecreeoofosuit filedoobyohimoinotheoyearo1979ooandowhenowasotheoosuitofiledobyolateoSh.oSohan Lal,othroughowhichooheobecameotheoowneroofotheoland,oandowhatowasotheobasis tooclaimotheoland,osooasotooensureowhetherotheoaffidavitofiledoino1973owasoalso correctooronot,olearnedocounseloforotheoappellantosubmitsothato oheohasono instructionsoaboutotheosaidocivilosuit.o

¶12Once,olateosh.oSohanoLalobecameotheoowneroofocertainolandoinothe yearo1979othroughoaodecreeoinotheocivilosuitodecidedobyotheocompetentoCourt LPA-322-2024oo(O&M) LPA-312-2024oo(O&M) LPA-323-2024oo(O&M) -7-oo ofolawobutonothingoevidentohasocomeoonorecordoasotoohow,otheosaidoclaimowas raisedoandowhenotheosaidosuitowasofiled,oitocouldoalsoobeoaooprobabilityothat evenowhenotheolandowasooallottedotoolateoSh.oSohanoLaloinotheoyearo1975owhich wasolateroonoowithdrawn,oowhichoorderohasobeenoupheldouptootheoHon'ble SupremeoCourtoofoIndia,otheoclaimoofoSh.oSohanoLaloquaoownershipoofoland measuringo38okanalo2omarlasowasopendingobeforeotheocompetentoCourtoofolaw, hence,oitoisoclearothatootheoappellantsoareonototruthfulooandotheyoohaveonot disclosedo oallotheofactso obeforeotheoauthoritiesoconcernedotooclaimothe allotmentoofolandoeitheroinotheoyearo1973ooroevenoino1981,oowhichofactohas rightlyobeenoappreciatedobyotheoauthoritiesoconcernedoasowelloasobyothe CompetentoCourtoofolawowhileopassingotheoimpugnedoorder.o

¶14Merelyothatotheoauthoritiesoconcernedohasosaidothatoaowrong affidavitohasobeenofiledobyolateoSh.oSohanoLal,owillonotogiveorightotooappellant toogetotheoorderopassedobyoauthoritiesoset-asideoespeciallyowhen,oevenoonothe factsobroughtoonorecordotheofactualopositionowhichoexistedoonotheodateoof applicationomadeoinotheooyearo1981,oinotheopresentocaseoisothatooolateoSh.oSohan Lalowasohavingoownershipoofolandomeasuringo38okanalo02omarlao oand accordingotootheoinstructionsoissuedobyotheoStateoowhenotheoallotmentowas madeoinotheoyearo1985,oowhichoallotmentoofolandoohasobeenowithdrawnoonothe groundothatolateoSh.oSohanoLaloodidonotofulfilotheoconditionsoofoallotmentooof anyoland,oisonotoperverse.oo

¶15Keepingoinoviewotheototalityoofofactsoandocircumstances,ono groundoisomadeooutoforoanyointerferenceobyothisoCourtoinotheofactsoand circumstancesoofotheopresentocase.

¶16oAccordingly,otheopresentoappealsoareoodismissed. LPA-322-2024 (O&M) LPA-312-2024 (O&M)

1.. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶18A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE ( VIKAS SURI ) JUDGE

28.08.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 101-3 Decided on : 28.08.2025 CM-748-LPA-2024 LPA-322-2024 (O&M) MAHENDER SINGH AND OTHERS . .Appellants Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents LPA-312-2024 (O&M) VIJAY SINGH . .Appellant Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents
  LPA-323-2024 (O&M) DHANPAT ALIAS DHANPAT RAI AND OTHERS . .Appellants Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate and Ms. Vanshika Singh, Advocate Ms. Devika Kamboj, Advocate for the appellant. ****