- (1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.10071 of 2011 (Yash Pal Versus Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala & others), 10077 of 2011 (Isham Singh Versus Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala & others), 10886 of 2011 (Smt.Satya Devi & others Versus Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala & others), 10901 of 2011 (Sheela Devi Versus Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala & others), 10903 of 2011 (Smt.Satya Devi & others Versus Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala & others) and 11317 of 2011 (Sewa Singh Versus Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala & others). The facts are being taken from CWP No.10071 of 2011. A land situated in Khewat No.178/150, Khatoni No.385, Khasra No.326, measuring 61 kanals 1 marla, situated in Gobindpuri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar is in dispute. It is stated to be a pond. As per the petitioner, it is an abadi deh, where inhabitants of Gobindpuri, including the petitioner, have constructed their residential houses and other buildings and have occupied the same as owners in possession of the respective portions of their building for the last more than 100 years.
(2.) Mutation No.905 was sanctioned in favour of respondent No.3-Municipal Committee. Accordingly, Municipal Committee filed an appeal under Sections 4/5 of the Haryana Public Premises & Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 for ejectment of the petitioner from this property. The petitioner contested the said application by filing a written statement. Petitioner claims that he is not in any unauthorised possession of the property in question and rather he is the owner in possession of the property. The petitioner being owner is also statedly paying the house tax. Respondent No.3 issued notice under Section 78 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (for short "Haryana Act") for fixing the house tax. This petition was allowed directing ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in dispute. The petitioner appealed against this order, which was rejected on 12.4.2006. This order was challenged by filing a Civil Writ Petition No.19962 of 2006 before this Court. This writ petition was decided along with other writ petition on 22.9.2008 and the case was remanded to respondent No.3 to record the evidence and pass a fresh order. Respondent No.2 has again passed fresh order directing ejectment of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, is before this court to challenge the said order.
(3.) As per the counsel for the petitioner, there is not an iota of evidence to show that this land is a pond. On the other hand, as per the counsel, this land forms part of abadi deh and as such was in possession of the petitioner for over 100 years. The earlier grievance of the petitioner was that he was not given any opportunity to lead relevant evidence in this regard to show that he is in possession of this land for over 100 years. This court had remanded the case to enable the petitioner to lead this evidence. The evidence, which was led, has not been considered by the revenue court concerned. As per the counsel, the evidence relied upon by the petitioner is Jamabandi Ex.R11. Some other Jamabandies for the years 1917-18, 1934-35 and 1962-63 have also been referred and the same would show that the land does not vest under Section 2-G of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act in the Gram Panchayat. On this basis, the petitioner would claim that the respondents have come in possession of this land for over 100 years and, thus, have become owners. The evidence led by the petitioner as well as the respondents has been discussed by the court concerned and finding has been recorded on the basis of this documentary evidence and the statements which were available on record. Reference is made to the Notification dated 29.1.1962, which shows that this disputed site came within the boundaries of Municipal Council, Yamuna Nagar. Mutation No.905 dated 29.10.1994 regarding disputed site, i.e., Khasra No.326 has been sanctioned in favour of Municipal Council. As per this mutation, Municipal Council has become owner of the disputed site and the possession of the respondents has been found to be purely illegal. The court found that the respondents have failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding their title.;