ISHAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order contained in Endst. No. S-2-93/21586-89, dated 20-4-193, issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department, Chandigarh, according approval for the gift of sham-lat land of Gram Panchayat Damla, Block Jagadhri, measuring 59 acres 5 kanals 10 marlas out of Khasra No. 201 to Ch. Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar, for the construction of Krishi Vigyan Kendra at Yamunanagar, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioner says that the land which has been gifted was reserved as abadi area at the time of consolidation in the village. He was in possession of land measuring 16 kanals out of 469 kanals 10 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 201 as a co-sharer and it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat.

(3.) THE Gram. Panchayat in its written statement has pleaded that the petitioner occupied a portion of the land and in the column of cultivation in the Jamabandi for the year 1989-90, it is recorded "gair maurusi, billa laqan". This entry obviously reflected that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed land without any rights. A petition moved by Jag Ram and Vinod Kumar, residents of village Damla, for correction of Khasra Girdwari entries in respect of the land measuring 16 Kanals comprised in Khewat No. 1141, Khatauni No. 1504 and Khasra No. 201, which is part of the total land measuring 469 Kanals 10 Marias of this Khewat, was dismissed by the Assistant Collector II Grade, Jagadhri, but on appeal, the order of the Assistant Collector was reversed by District Collector, Jagadhri, vide order dated April 8, 1993, observing thus : "after hearing counsel for both the parties and going through the relevant record, I have come to conclusion that the disputed land is old abadideh and the same is not covered by Section 4 of the Land Revenue Act and hence the same is not covered by the definition of land. On account of the aforesaid reasons, the correction of girdawari of the disputed land is neither justifiable nor legal.