G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THE present judgment shall dispose of three writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 2930, 7103 and 18218 of 2012 since issues are common in all the three cases. The facts are being taken from CWP No. 2930 of 2012, Zenith Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others. The challenge in the present writ petition is to order dated 04.08.2011 (Annexure P -13), which has been issued on behalf of the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (respondent No. 2), directing the Revenue Authorities to act upon order dated 23.07.1992 and the subsequent Mutation No. 1090 dated 27.08.2011 sanctioned on the basis of the said directions whereby, the land in dispute has been shown to be Gram Panchayat Deh land. Further prayer made is for restoring Mutation Nos. 515 and 543 dated 22.12.2004 wherein, the Consolidation Authorities and Revenue Authorities had held the proprietors to be owners in possession and accordingly not to dispossess the petitioner and to allot land as prescribed in the Hakdarwar and in the Land Pass Book.
(2.) THE short question that arises in these set of writ petitions is basically as to whether order dated 23.07.1992 passed by respondent No. 2 wherein, he had allowed the revision of the respondent No. 7 -Gram Panchayat and held that the land vests in the Gram Panchayat has become final or not. The pleadings of the petitioner would go on to show that 16 proprietors of village Nainwal had filed a suit under Section 13A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable to Haryana) (for short 'the Act') claiming title in the land and taking the plea that the land measuring 1252 bighas and 4 biswas was wrongly shown as Panchayat Deh on 28.04.1982. It was pleaded that mutation of transfer of ownership has wrongly been done without intimating the said persons and the land had been shown as Gram Panchayat Deh. The possession was stated to be of the proprietors, though the area was described as "Banjar Qadim" and much of the land was "Gair Mumkin Pahar" or "Gair Mumkin Nala". It was further pleaded that the land in dispute was never used for common purposes and the defendant -Gram Panchayat had no link or concern with it. Accordingly, the entry of 14.04.1982 in the revenue record was challenged. The Assistant Collector came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving issue No. 1 in their favour regarding the vesting of the land and decreed the claim of the right holders. As per the pleadings, it is alleged that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Assistant Collector, notification under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been issued for acquiring land measuring 370 acres 5 kanals and 15 marlas and an award was pronounced on 22.06.1985 and compensation was paid to the proprietors of the land. A revision was filed against the order dated 03.03.1987 (Annexure P -1) by the Gram Panchayat and respondent No. 2 allowed the same on 23.07.1992 (Annexure P -3) by holding that the land vested in the Gram Panchayat on the basis of the Sharat Wazibul Arz. The right holders filed CWP No. 15619 of 1992 challenging the order of respondent No. 2. The said writ petition was disposed of on 13.03.2003 by the Full Bench of this Court alongwith the bunch of cases pertaining to CWP No. 5877 of 1992 decided on the same date titled as Jai Singh and others v. State of Haryana. Thereafter, on 22.12.1994, Mutation Nos. 515 and 543 were entered in favour of the right holders allegedly on the basis of the orders passed by the Full Bench and in pursuance to the orders passed in CWP No. 15619 of 1992. The petitioner purchased 58 bighas, 12 biswas and 1 biswani from M/s. Spring Farms Pvt. Ltd. vide registered sale deed on 25.06.2009 (Annexure P -7) and on the basis of the said sale deed, mutation was entered on 10.07.2009 in their favour. It was further pleaded that thereafter consolidation proceedings under The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 had been notified on 16.09.2009 and no Shamilat Deh land was mentioned and Shamilat Deh Raqba had been duly mutated in favour of the proprietors. The petitioner's name was shown in the scheme of consolidation and it is rightly so recognized and it was issued Land Pass Book by the Department of Consolidation. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 04.08.2011 was passed wherein, it was directed that effect be given to order dated 23.07.1992 and in pursuance of the same, Mutation No. 1090 was sanctioned in favour of the Panchayat Deh, which is now the subject matter of challenge.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the order of the Commissioner dated 23.07.1992 (Annexure P -3) was a non -speaking order and based upon the Amendment Act No. 9 of 1992 and the Full Bench of this Court, in Jai Singh's case (supra), has set aside the mutations on the basis of 1992 amendment and, therefore, the right and title could not be changed by way of mutation. It was accordingly pleaded that by necessary implication, the order of the Commissioner was deemed to have been annulled. It is also submitted that the petitioner was never heard before the orders were passed and its rights were affected and the change in mutation was violative of the principles of natural justice.;