In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.11303 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:30.7.2009 Krishan Pal and others .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Vipin K. Bali, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the land in Village Papnera, Tehsil Ghanaur, District Sonepat was earlier part of Village Kotana, Tehsil Bagpat in the State of U.P. It is submitted that on transfer of the land to the State of Haryana, the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak has issued notification (Annexure-P.3) whereby land measuring 1101 Kanals 1 Marla comprised in Killa Nos.4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 18/1, 18/2, 19/1, 20/1, 36/1 and 37/1 has been entered as `Shamilat Deh' instead of custodians. Out of these Killa numbers land comprised in Killa No.18/1 has been auctioned by the Gram Panchayat on 6.6.2009 (Annexures-P.16 to P.20). The petitioners, it is submitted, are the owners in possession of land comprised in Killa Nos.2/1/1, 2/1 and 2/24. It is submitted that these Killas have been carved out of Killa No.18/1, which was notified for auction on 6.6.2009 (Annexures-P.16 to P.20). Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioners are being dispossessed from the land C.W.P. No.11303 of 2009 [2] which is in their possession. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the record it may be noticed that there is nothing on record to show that Killa Nos.2/1/1, 2/1 and 2/24 have been carved out of Killa No.18/1 as claimed. Rather, the copy of Khatauni (Annexure-P.1) records Killa No.2/1/1 Min. to be the ownership of Baljit Singh Regga, Killa No.2/24 to be the ownership of Norang son of Ratti, etc. Even in Jamabandi for the year 2005-06 (Annexure-P.2) land in Khasra No.18/1 (152-10) is recorded as ownership of `Shamilat Deh' and in the occupation of self-cultivation and `Makbuza Malkans'. Besides, Khasra No.2/1/1 Min. is recorded as the ownership of Pitma Ram Kawar son of Phola and Khasra No.2/1/1 as ownership of Pheru son of Sunera, besides Khasra No.2/1/1 as ownership of Bhagmal son of Bakhtu and Killa No.2/1/1 Min. as the ownership of Radhey Shyam Baleshwar Dayal son of Gopi Chand and Dalal son of Jai Ram, Khasra No.2/24 is recorded as the ownership of Vijay Singh son of Samey Singh, Lillu etc. The petitioners, it is claimed, had purchased the land from these aforesaid persons vide registered sale deeds dated 5.5.1998 (Annexure-P.7), 16.5.2002 (Annexure-P.8), 16.5.2002 (Annexure-P.9), 29.5.1997 (Annexure-P.10) and dated 4.10.1994 (Annexure-P.11). It is also submitted that mutation No.2077 (Annexure-P.5) in respect of these Khasra numbers has been sanctioned in favour of the co-sharers. Besides, mutation No.2076 (Annexure-P.6) stands sanctioned in favour of Smt. Urmila Devi wife of Nursi. In the circumstances, it may be noticed that there is nothing on record to show that the Killa Nos.2/1/1, 2/1 and 2/24 have been carved out of Killa No.18/1 which Killa No. has been notified for auction on 6.6.2009 C.W.P. No.11303 of 2009 [3] (Annexures-P.16 to P.20). Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners appears to be unfounded. However, in view of the revenue records involved and the nature of dispute it would be just and expedient if the petitioners are relegated to the remedy of a civil suit so as to enable the petitioners to lead evidence and seek appropriate remedy in case their rights are threatened or are under a cloud in respect of Killa Nos.2/1/1, 2/1 and 2/24. It is needless to submit that in case the petitioners are the owners of the aforesaid Killa numbers, the Gram Panchayat would not dispossess them under the garb of the auction proceedings dated 6.6.2009 (Annexures-P.16 to P.20). In case the petitioners are threatened in this regard they have the remedy of approaching the civil Court. Therefore, the petition is dismissed by relegating the petitioners to avail remedy of civil suit. It is ,however, made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioners and the Civil Court shall decide the same on the basis of evidence and material as adduced before it. July 30, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No