MAM CHAND AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are these. An area measuring 7110 bighas 1 biswa comprising more than 150 khasra numbers in part of the shamilat deh of the revenue estate of Arangpur (also called Anangpur) in Tahsil Ballabgarh, District Gurgaon. Except for 3 or 4 of the said khasra numbers, of which the total area works out to be less than 5 bighas, the description of the area first mentioned as given in the revenue records is "Ghair Mumkin Pahar''. Prior to the year 1953 the shamilat deh was owned by the proprietors of the estate who, in the year 1946, leased out the said are measuring 7110 bighas 1 biswa (hereinafter referred to as the disputed land) to the Arangpur Co -operative Society Limited for a period of 20 years against a rental of Rs. 1800/ - per annum. On the 26th of December, 1953, the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (Punjab Act No. 1 of 1954) came into force and under the provisions thereof the Panchayat of village Arangpur (hereinafter referred to as the Panchayat) became owner of the shamilat deh land including the disputed area. By then the Arangpur Co -operative Society Limited had fallen into arrears with regard to the payment of rent and had in fact been declared insolvent. In order to protect their interest, the Panchayat cancelled the lease above mentioned and granted a lease of the disputed land to two persons named Jagdish Parshad and Bahadur Singh for a period of 20 years through a registered deed of lease executed on the 3rd of May, 1954, the rental again being Rs. 1800/ - per annum. The terms of the lease in so far as they are relevant to the controversy before me were:

(2.) DURING the course of the pendency of the petition, the Government of Haryana, purporting to act as owner of minor minerals in the disputed land, granted certain rights in respect thereof to Cleamax (India) Pvt. Limited (whose Managing Director is respondent No. 16) and the Anangpur Sand Company, Anangpur, a partnership firm (respondent No. 17). Thereupon the petitioners put in applications stating that respondents Nos. 16 and 17 had started mining operation in the disputed land and had thus partially dispossessed the petitioners and praying that these respondents be made parties to the petition. The applications were accepted.

(3.) ON behalf of respondents Nos. 16 and 17, the following four contentions have been raised: