COCP No. 1774 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 1774 of 2009 Date of decision:- 14.12.2009. Balbir Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Manphool Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. Prem Singh Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for respondent Nos.1,7,9 and 10. Mr. Ashok Jindal, Addl.A.G. Haryana for respondent No.8. RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(Oral) As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioners are proprietors and permanent residents of village Aibli, Sub-Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal. After consolidation Bachat Land measuring 2041 Bighas 8 Biswas recorded as 'Shamlat Deh Nasab Zare Khewat' was mutated by Assistant Collector Second Grade, Karnal in favour of village proprietors i.e. writ petitioners vide mutation No.415 on 23.4.1982. On appeal of Gram Panchayat, Aibli, Collector, Karnal had set aside the aforementioned order of Assistant Collector IInd Grade dated 23.4.1982. The commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala upheld the order of collector and dismissed the appeal filed by the predecessors of petitioners and their co-appellants on 29.8.1984. It may also be noticed that on 21.7.1986 predecessor-in- COCP No. 1774 of 2009 2 interest of the petitioners filed a suit against the Gram Panchayat Aibli Khalsa, before the District Revenue Officer exercising powers of Assistant Collector, First Grade, Karnal under Section 13-A of Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1954 for declaration that land measuring 2108 kanals comprised in numerous khasra numbers of various Rectangles situated in revenue estate of village Aibli, H.B. No.25 as detailed in suit application was Bachat land of village proprietors and had been wrongly recorded/mutated in the name of Gram Panchayat as it does not vests in it and they being co-sharers in aforesaid land are in possession of following land out of aforesaid land (i) Mangal, Lal Singh, Anant Ram, Arjun sons of Het Ram in Killa Nos.7,8, 13 to 24, 25 min of Rect. No.2, Killa No.21, 22/1 of Rect No.6, Killa No.6,7, 14 to 17 of Rect. No.8; (ii) Pritam Singh @ Pawan Kumar in Killa No.3, 9 to 13, 18 to 20 of Rect. No.7; (iii) Devi Chand in Killa Nos.16, 17/2, 24, 25, 46/4, 46/7/1 of Rect. No.35 and (iv) Man Singh in Killa No.17, 18/1, 22, 23 of Rect. No.38 while Ram Singh in possession of Killa No.7 to 9, 10/1, 10/2, 11 to 14 of Rect. No.51 since before 26.1.1950 as per entries in revenue record. The District Revenue Officer-cum-A.C.I.Grade had dismissed the aforesaid suit vide order dated 16.2.1989. The Appellate Authority (Collector) as well as Revisional Authority (Commissioner Rohtak Division) vide their orders dated 12.6.1990 and 18.7.1991 respectively upheld the aforesaid order dated 16.2.1989 while dismissing the appeal and revision filed by the petitioners. The petitioners filed CWP No.2100 of 1992 in this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the aforesaid orders dated 16.2.1989, 12.6.1990 and 18.7.1991 (attached as Annexures P-2 to P-4 with the writ petition) and to declare the petitioners as owners of the land in dispute with further prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing COCP No. 1774 of 2009 3 respondent-Gram Panchayat not to dispossess them from land in dispute as detailed and described in the writ petition in any manner whatsoever. Vide order dated 12.2.1992, this Court stayed the dispossession. The aforesaid ad interim stay granted vide order dated 12.2.1992 was ordered to continue during the pendency of the petition vide order dated 15.5.1992. It is relevant to point out at this stage that on 21.7.1992 an amendment in the writ petition was allowed. The respondent-Gram Panchayat filed written statement to the aforesaid amended writ petition. It is the grievance of the petitioners before this Court that the Gram Panchayat deliberately and intentionally colluded and connived with respondent No.7 to 30 to take forcible possession of the land in dispute and to achieve the aforesaid object, respondent No.1 to 6 along with respondents No.9 to 30 forcibly and illegally trespassed into the land of the writ petitioners in order to dispossess them. An FIR No.216 was registered at Police Station Butana on 4.6.2009 against respondents except respondents No.7 and 8. It is the further case of the petitioners that on 8.6.2009, the Gram Panchayat resolved to auction the land comprised in Rectangle No.2 Khasra No.7 8, 12 to 16 and 18 to 25 claiming the same as lying vacant and not subject to any stay and in pursuance of the aforesaid resolution, auctioned the aforesaid land on 13.6.2009 leasing out the land measuring 5 acres 7 kanals 16 marlas comprised in Killa No.7, 12, 14 to 16, 24 to 25 of Rectangle No.2 to Sube Singh-respondent for a sum of Rs.42,000/- and land measuring 7 acres 4 kanals 11 marlas comprised in Killa Nos.8, 13 and 18 to 23 of Rectangle No.2 to Ram Chander- respondent for a sum of Rs.56,000/- in the year 2009-10. It is the further case of the petitioners that they had also filed an application on 11.6.2009 for correction of inadvertent typographical COCP No. 1774 of 2009 4 mistake which occurred in amended writ petition with regard to number of rectangle having been typed as '12' instead of '2' and on this application, notice was issued for 16.7.2009 and the application was allowed on 7.9.2009. Thus, according to the petitioners, the respondents are guilty of committing contempt of this Court. The averments made in this petition have been denied by the respondents in their reply. It has been further submitted that as per the resolution dated 8.6.2009 passed by the Gram Panchayat Aibli to auction vacant land situated in Rectangle No.2 and Khasra No.2/7, 12, 14, 16, 24, 25 and Khasra No.2/8, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. The auction was held on 13.6.2009 and accordingly, the auction has taken place. It has been further submitted in the reply of respondents No.7 and 8 that the property n question which has been auctioned was not described in the amended writ petition and thus, the aforesaid land was not subject to the stay order passed by this Court. It has been further submitted that after the application for correction filed by the petitioner was allowed on 7.9.2009, the auction dated 13.6.2009 was cancelled and on 28.10.2009, the petitioners were put into possession. It was further submitted that the inadvertent mistake committed by the aforesaid respondents in discharge of their duties has already been rectified and therefore, the present contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1, it is submitted that the land in dispute was not covered by any stay order passed by this Court and therefore, the Gram Panchayat passed resolution dated 8.6.2009 to auction the land in dispute as the said land was not the subject matter of the amended writ petition and thus, connivance, collusion or conspiracy of respondent No.1 to dispossess the petitioner along with other respondents, was denied. It was further submitted that respondents No.9 COCP No. 1774 of 2009 5 and 10 are the highest bidders in the auction held on 13.6.2009 for the land in dispute and have also deposited the auction money on the same date. Respondents No.9 and 10 in their written statements have submitted that they are in possession of the property in dispute as they were put into possession by the official respondents after auction. It was further submitted that the petitioners were adamant to interfere with the possession of respondents No.9 and 10 and this Court, on an application, vide its order dated 28.10.2009 modified the earlier order of stay of dispossession by ordering maintenance and status quo with regard to the land in question. Thus, it was submitted that the aforesaid respondents have not committed any contempt as they are in possession of the property in dispute legally. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the petition. The grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that vide order dated 12.2.1992 this Court had stayed the dispossession of the petitioners from the land in dispute but the respondents dispossessed them. It is further case of the petitioners that they were put into possession on 28th October, 2009 but still the respondents are interfering in their possession and trying to dispossess them. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent Nos.1,7,9 and 10 had disputed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. It has been averred on behalf of respondents that in fact the writ petition was amended and the property in dispute was not a subject matter of the writ petition as amended on 15th July, 1992. However, this court vide order dated 7th September, 2009 has permitted the petitioners to rectify the details of the numbers of the COCP No. 1774 of 2009 6 property in dispute whereas respondents No.9 and 10 were put into possession by the respondent-Gram Panchayat and the other official respondents in pursuance of the auction dated 13.6.2009. Shri C.B. Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1,7,9 and 10 has brought to the notice of this Court the order dated 28th October, 2009 wherein this court had directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the land in question. It is also not in dispute that the land in question was auctioned on 13th June, 2009 by the Gram Panchayat and the private respondents have deposited the auctioned money. It is also not in dispute that the disputed khasra number of land was not described in the amended writ petition and the respondents were put in possession on the basis of auction dated 13.6.2009. The aforesaid omission on the part of the respondents was rectified only on 7.9.2009 and thereafter, this Court vide order dated 28.10.2009 modified the stay order dated 15.5.1992 and ordered status quo. Thus, in view of the aforesaid disputed question of facts, it cannot be said at this stage that the orders dated 12.2.1992 and 15.5.1992 have been violated and therefore, I am not inclined to proceed further in this case. Rule discharged. Needless to say that the parties are already contesting their rights in the writ petition and they may file any appropriate application in the aforesaid writ petition. December 14, 2009 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE