MOHINDAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PEPSU AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
State Of Pepsu And Another
Click here to view full judgement.
Mehar Singh, J. -
(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution arising out of facts as stated below.
(2.) THE petitioner Mohinder Singh, avers that he is the owner of 29 kanals and 5 marlas land, field, Nos. 81, 82 and 87, situate within the area of village Hari Nau, in tehsil Faridkot of Bhatinda District, and was in possession of the land as such, when on 14 -6 -1953, under the authority of the respondents, the Pepsu State and the Collector of Bhatinda district, some members of backward, classes were put in possession of the land, thus dispossessing the petitioner of the same. The respondents treated the land as State land and on that score leased it to certain members of backward classes. The petitioner points out that he had been in possession of the land for more than fifty or sixty years even in the time of the former Faridkot State and later a suit brought against Him by His Highness the Maharaja of Faridkot on 28 -8 -2005 Bk. for possession of this land was dismissed on 25 -10 -2006 Bk. The petitioner, therefore, says that the action of respondent No. 2, Collector of Faridkot district, in leasing the land and ousting the petitioner from possession of it without any notice to him is illegal and without jurisdiction.
He made an application to respondent No. 2 for delivery back of the possession of the land but in vain. He, therefore, prays for the issue of:
(a) a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State (respondent No. 1) not to lease out the land,
(b) a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the land, or
(c) any other direction or order that may be deemed necessary and proper in the circumstances of the case.
The position taken on behalf of the respondents is that the application of the petitioner for 'delivery back' of the possession to him is still pending with the Government and the petition is premature, that the petitioner could approach the higher Revenue authorities in an appeal or file a civil suit to recover possession of the land and so the petition ought to be dismissed on this ground, that the petitioner is not the owner of the land in question & was not in possession of it, that His Highness the Maharaja of Faridkot had no interest in the land as it had become the property of the State and, therefore, he allowed the suit to be dismissed in default, that the land is the property of the State and so the respondents had every legal right to lease it to members of backward classes, and that the order of respondent No. 2 is legal, just and proper and the petitioner has no title to the land.
(3.) IT is admitted by the Learned Counsel for the parties that possession of the land had passed from the petitioner to the lessees under the respondents so there can be no question of issuing writs in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to lease out the land or prohibiting them from dispossessing the petitioner from the land.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.