CWP No. 9012 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9012 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: April 07, 2011 Phool Singh and others .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana and others ........ RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. S.S. Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate, for Mr. G.S. Hooda, Advocate, for respondent no. 3. Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate, for respondent no. 5. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to change pond area to residential area in view of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3215, Hinch Lal Tewari vs. Kamla Devi and others. 2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was examining a set of facts wherein, in a village, pond area was being allotted for residential purposes. Residents of the village objected to the same. Considering the said circumstances, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, CWP No. 9012 of 2010 2 mountain etc. are nature's bounty. Ecological balance is required to be maintained. 3. In the case in hand, all that has been placed on record to say that the land at issue is a Gair Mumkin Johar is a jamabandi for the year 1946- 47. In the column of ownership, names of certain muslims have been given. 4. Even learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the land at issue is in city Rohtak and, therefore, it is not a scenario, as presumed by the petitioner, that it is village pond that could be used for the cattle or other such purposes in the village. 5. A specific report was sought from Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak vide order dated 18.08.2010 asking the Deputy Commissioner to examine the entire revenue record and file a detailed affidavit before this Court as to how Smt. Shakuntla etc. came to be recorded as owner of the land. 6. The following is the content of the affidavit:- “1. That in compliance of the orders, the report of the land Khasra No. 1907 and 1911/14761 total measuring 6 Bigha and 14 Biswa Gair Mumkin Johri (Pond) situated at Rohtak was obtained from the Tehsildar, Rohtak. As per report of Tehsildar, Rohtak and as per Jamabandi for the year 1946-47, Shri Anwar Ali Khan s/o Shri Umardraj Khan etc. were owner of the land. The true translated copy of Jamabandi Khewat no. 1376 Min and Khewat No. 1428 is attached as Annexure R-1/T. 2. That as per jamabandi for the year 1962-63, Khewat No. 1851 Khasra No. 14761/1911, 1907, the Arazi Matruka Bila Allot Shuda (Custodian CWP No. 9012 of 2010 3 Department) became owner of the land. The true translated copy of Jamabandi Khewat No. 1851 attached as Annexure R-2/T. 3. That as per Mutation No. 7822 dated 30-11-1967, 6 Bigha 14 Biswa land was purchased by Shri Kheyraj s/o Sheo Ram (686119 share) and Smt. Sita Devi w/o Shri Amolak Ran (826381 share) in auction from Arazi Matruka (Custodian Department) for Rs. 15125/-. The true translated copy of Mutation no. 7822 attached as Annexure R-3/T. 4. That further Shri Kheyraj s/o Shri Sheo Ram and Smt. Sita Devi w/o Shri Amolak Ram further sold the above said land to the following persons as per mutation no. mentioned against each. 1) Smt. Shakuntala w/o Sh. Satish Chand- Mutation No. 9595 B dt. 14.9.87. 2) Smt. Leela Devi W/o Sh. Suresh Chand-Mutation no. 9596B dt. 14.9.87. 3) Smt. Sushela Devi W/o Hukam Chand-Mutation no. 9597B dt. 14.9.87. 4) Smt. Madhu w/o Sh. Sunil Kumar-Mutation No. 9598 B dt. 14.9.87. 5) Sh. Satish Chander s/o Hukam Chand-Mutation No. 9599B dt. 14.9.87. 6) Smt. Leela Devi W/o Suresh Chand-Mutation No. 9600 B dt. 14.9.87. CWP No. 9012 of 2010 4 7) Sh. Sunil Kumar s/o Sh. Hukam Chand-Mutation No. 9601 B dt. 14.9.87. 8) Smt. Susheela Devi W/o Hukam Chand-Mutation No. 9602B dt. 14.9.87. 9) Sh. Manav s/o Satish Chand-Mutation No. 9603 B dated 14.9.87. 10) Sh. Vishal s/o Suresh Chand-Mutation No. 9604 B dt. 14.9.87. The true translated copy of mutations attached as Annexure R-4/T to R-13/T. 5. That further Smt. Leela Devi, Smt. Sushila Devi and Shri Sunil have sold their share vide mutation no. 9743 B, 9588 B, 10063B, 10082 B, 10235 B, 10236 B, 10237 B, 10238 B. 6. That as per the above mentioned revenue record, the land in question was in the name of Shri Anwar Ali Khan etc. vide Jamabandi year 1946-47 and the Arazi Matruka (Custodian Department) became owner vide Jamabandi year 1962-63. The land was purchased by Shri Kheyraj s/o Shri Sheo Ram and Smt. Sita Devi w/o Shri Amolak Ram in auction from the Arazi Matruka (Custodian Department) vide mutation no. 7822 and further the land was sold to Smt. Shakuntla etc. by the above said owners.” 7. Faced with the facts as they emerge from the affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents are bound to show CWP No. 9012 of 2010 5 as to how the land vested in the Custodian Department. The writ court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, is not the Forum to do the fish hunting. The petitioners would be at liberty to take recourse to law, if one is available. In view of the report filed by the Deputy Commissioner as extracted above, which has not been controverted by a counter affidavit, writ of mandamus, as prayed for by the petitioner, cannot be issued. 8. No ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is made out, in view of the report filed by the Deputy Commissioner. 9. Petition dismissed. 07.04.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?