SHEO NARAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed to quash the order of the Collector, Gurgaon dated 26. 7. 1993 vide Annexure P3.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he and some other villagers have been in possession of the disputed land for more than 50 years and one Dhara Singh and others i. e. respondents No. 3 to 8 filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 to eject the petitioner from the disputed land. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gurgaon rejected the application filed by respondents 3 to 8 on the ground that the petitioner and his ancestors have been in possession of abadi deh since long time. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be evicted. Against the order of Assistant Collector, respondents 3 to 8 filed an appeal before the Collector, who by the impugned order dated 26. 7. 1993 (vide Annexure P3) al lowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and directed the eviction of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , no revenue records have been produced either before the Assistant Collector or before the Collector. The Assistant Collector for rejecting the claim of respondent No. 3 to 8 relied upon the fact that the petitioner and his ancestors are in continuous possession of the land for the last 50 years under Mukhtiar Ali Shah and when the possession is considered to be a long one, he cannot be evicted. This aspect of the matter whether the petitioner Sheo Narain has been in possession of the land for a long time as held by the Assistant Collector was not adverted to by the Collector in the impugned order. In the impugned order, no evidence has been referred to by the Collector. It is not possible to believe that there is no revenue record at all in respect of the disputed land. It is incumbent on the part of the authorities to decide the question of title whenever it is raised. On going through the order of the Collector, I am of the opinion that the order is based on surmises and conjectures. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for remand to the Collector, Gurgaon, for considering the evidence on record afresh.