Gram Panchayat of village Dahisara, Tehsil and District Sonepat v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Mr. D.Khanna, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 6 Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 8 to 11. None for the applicant (in CRM No. 14189 of 2012) Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, Amicus Curiae *** RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL) The Gram Panchayat of village Dahisara, Tehsil and District Sonepat, has filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to order an independent, fair and impartial fact C.W.P.No. 2188 of 2011 -2- finding enquiry with regard to illegal sale of land belonging to the Gram Panchayat to M/s Malbros International Private Limited. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents, who filed their respective replies. A direction was also issued not to change the nature of the land. As an eqnuiry was already pending before the Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak, it was ordered that the enquiry be concluded. The enquiry report was placed on record on 11.8.2011. An affidavit was filed by Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Haryana, and an FIR was registered with respect to sale of Gram Panchayat property. Upon due consideration of the report, the affidavit as well as a status report filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, the following order was passed on 10.10.2012:- “Admittedly, the land, in dispute, is recorded as 'Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat' in all relevant jamabandies, preceding enactment of Act No. 9 of 1992. After Section 2(g) (6) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)Act, 1961 was introduced by Act No. 9 of 1992 declaring that land reserved during consolidation shall be 'Shamilat Deh', and revenue authorities were instructed to record mutations on the basis of Act No. 9 of 1992. Though the land in dispute is Shamilat Deh, revenue authorities altered the mutation to 'Panchayat Deh'. The proprietors challenged the mutation praying that the mutation may be set aside. The matter came up for consideration in C.W.P.No. 15611 of 2003 which was dismissed as infructuous in the following terms:- “There is no need at all to give detailed facts of this case but for to say that writ has been filed seeking quashing of order, Annexure P-1, passed by learned Financial Commissioner, as well as order dated 28.11.2000, Annexure P-2, passed in C.W.P.No. 2188 of 2011 -3- the Executive appeal by learned Commissioner, the 3rd respondent herein, and for restoration of order, dated 27.12.1995, Annexure P5. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, counsel representing the Gram Panchayat, which is the only contesting respondent, has appeared and stated that Gram Panchayat has no objection if all mutations after amendment brought about by virtue of Act No. 9 of 1992 are set aside and the position regarding entries in revenue records of land remains the same as was prior to the amendment aforesaid and by the process aforesaid, if the Gram Panchayat would have any grievance it would institute proper proceedings which shall be disposed of, in accordance with law. In view of the statement made by Mr. H.R.Hooda learned counsel representing the Gram Panchayat, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that this petition has become infructuous and may be disposed of as such. So ordered.” A perusal of the order reveals that the Gram Panchayat conceded that mutation recorded after amendment, should be set aside and the revenue entries be restored to the position as existed prior to the amendment carried out under Act No. 9 of 1992. It appears that instead of restoring the words 'Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat', Kuldip Singh, the then Patwari, on 28.11.2000 recorded the names of proprietors, in accordance with their share holdings in the 'Parat Patwar' ( the document prepared by the Patwari before a mutation is sanctioned and attested). We would, at this stage, like to clarify that a 'Parat Patwar' is prepared by a patwari and is placed before the Collector for sanction/attestation. The 'Parat Patwar' was placed before the Tehsildar, Sonepat, who C.W.P.No. 2188 of 2011 -4- did not approve the same and instead recorded the word “cancelled”. The patwari retained the 'Parat Patwar' and issued copies to proprietors, who used extracts from 'Parat Patwar', manipulated entries in the jamabandi and sold the land to unsuspecting vendees. The vendees are also before us asserting their rights as bona fide purchasers. The petitioners pray for initiation of an enquiry into the entire matter. During pendency of the petition, FIR No. 250 dated 9.8.2011 was registered at Police Station City Sonepat, and is under investigation, but, the police are dragging their feet as surprisingly they have failed to apprehend the patwaries or to interrogate officers responsible for issuance of copies of jamabandies and registration of sale deeds etc. Without expressing any final opinion in the matter lest it cause prejudice to any one, the Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, is directed to personally head an Investigating Team, carry out investigations into the matter and submit a status report before this Court within three weeks. In the meanwhile, there shall be an order of status quo with respect to ownership, execution of sale deeds, user of land and no person whatsoever, shall be entitled to deal with the land, in dispute, in any manner whatsoever. We impress upon the Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, who is present in Court, that we expect a fair and impartial investigation, by ensuring that only those persons, who are actually involved in the commission of any offence are proceeded against. The rights of the bona fide purchasers would be/can be determined only after receipt of the status report prepared by the Investigating Team, headed by the Superintendent of Police, Sonepat. Adjourned to 2.11.2012.” Sh. Arun Singh, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, filed status report disclosing that the concerned patwaries have been arrested and C.W.P.No. 2188 of 2011 -5- the investigation is in progress. Vide order dated 23.11.2012, M/s Malbors International Private Limited was allowed to dismantle and remove the construction material, steel structure etc. from the land, in dispute. Mr. D.Khanna, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, has filed another report in the form of a short affidavit of Pankaj Agarwal, Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, by appending therewith, a copy of a suit for declaration titled as “Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Rai, Tehsil and District Sonepat v. Rakesh and others” filed under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)Act, 1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as “the 1961 Act”) praying that sale deeds of Gram Panchayat land be declared null and void. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, amicus curiae, informs the Court that petitions under Section 7 of the 1961 Act have been allowed but appeals are pending. A perusal of the reports, the replies, the affidavits and the FIR reveals that Government and its functionaries are finally alive to the sale of alleged Gram Panchayat property. A petition has been filed under Section 13-A of the 1961 Act for concellation of the sale deeds. An appeal under Section 7 of the 1961 Act is pending consideration and investigation in the FIR is in progress. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to decide the suit for declaration and the appeal in accordance with law, within six months from the next date of hearing. Investigation in the FIR lodged in the present case, as a result of sale of land belonging to the Gram Panchayat, be concluded expeditiously. It is made clear to officers concerned, who are seized of the C.W.P.No. 2188 of 2011 -6- suit and the appeal that the matter be decided, after considering the rights of all parties concerned and strictly in accordance with law. (RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE ( REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE November 29, 2012 PARAMJIT