CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13355 OF 2007. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 13355 of 2007. Date of Decision: September 04 ,2008. Sahab Singh & Ors. Petitioners through Mr. A.P.S.Shergill, Advocate Versus State of Haryana & Ors. Respondents through Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl.AG, Haryana. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. The petitioners, who are residents of village Katha, Tehsil Khekra, District Bagpat [Uttar Pradesh] and claim to be agriculturists, seek a Mandamus commanding the respondents including the Commissioner, Rohtak Division and the Collector, Sonepat etc. to prepare 'revenue records' and carry out proceedings for consolidating the holdings after conducting demarcation of land measuring 1825 Bighas situated in the revenue estate of village Katha, Tehsil Khekra, District Bagpat allegedly owned by them but transferred to the State of Haryana due to change in the course of River Yamuna. The aforementioned relief has been sought on the basis of “Dixit Award of 1974” read with the provisions contained in the Haryana and Uttar CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13355 OF 2007. ::-2-:: Pradesh [Alteration of Boundaries] Act, 1979. They further seek a direction to enter their names in the revenue record as owners in possession of the subject land with reference to corresponding entries made by the authorities in Uttar Pradesh. A restraint order has also been sought against the authorities of the State of Haryana for not interfering with the peaceful and continuous physical possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute. [2]. The petitioners alleged that village Katha is situated on the Eastern bank of River Yamuna, whereas villages Manauli, Khurampur and Jhakoli are situated on its Western bank. As the river has been changing its course, the resultant alluvion and diluvion has given rise to the disputes between the farmers from village Katha [U.P.] on the one side and those from District Sonepat, on the other. According to the petitioners, the States of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh referred their boundary disputes to the Sole Arbitration of Shri Uma Shankar Dixit and as per the “Dixit Award”, the boundary was demarcated and pillars were erected. The agreed boundary was sanctified by the Cenral Act, known as the Haryana and Uttar Pradesh [Alteration of Boundaries] Act, 1979. [3]. The petitioners have further averred that as per the said award the 1825 Bighas of land, owned and possessed by them, has been transferred to a few villages, viz., Manauli, Khurampur and Jhakoli of District Sonepat. Their grievance is that notwithstanding the transfer of their lands to the State of Haryana way back in the year 1979, the revenue authorities of the Haryana State have so far neither corrected the old records nor prepared the new record of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13355 OF 2007. ::-3-:: rights depicting them as owners with possessory rights over the transferred land, thus, depriving them of their valuable rights of ownership. The petitioners further allege that due to the in-action on the part of the Haryana State authorities the farmers or the anti-social elements from Haryana side get encouraged to take forcible possession of their lands. [4]. Relying upon the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and the East Punjab Holdings [Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation] Act, 1948, the petitioners assert that the authorities in the State of Haryana are under a legal obligation to prepare the new record of rights including Khasra Girdawari and Jamabandi and then to carry out consolidation of holdings in respect of the subject land under the 1948 Act. [5]. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 by the Tehsildar-cum-Collector Grade II, Sonepat, wherein while controverting the claim of the petitioners, it is pointed out that no record has been appended by them to show that the land had been transferred from the village Katha [U.P.] to the villages of District Sonepat due to a change in the course of the river. [6]. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the material on record, we find that even as per the petitioners' own case, the Collector of the District is the authority competent to fix the boundaries where the land of two or more States is subjected to any river action, which demarcation is then required to be approved by the Financial Commissioner. It is, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13355 OF 2007. ::-4-:: however, not in dispute, rather fairly conceded by the learned counsel that none of the petitioners has approached the Collector, Sonepat so far. The law is well settled that besides showing his own legal right or the legal duty of the party opposite, the petitioner is required to raise his demand before the authorities concerned and only after implied or express refusal by such authorities to discharge their legal obligation that a mandamus can be sought. No such recourse has been followed by the petitioners before approaching this Court. [7]. We are also of the view that the writ petition involves disputed questions of facts regarding conflicting claims between two sets of farmers, which can not be effectively addressed by a writ court, especially when the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy to approach the authorities including the Collector, Sonepat under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 or the East Punjab Holdings [Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation] Act, 1948 read with the provisions contained in the Haryana and Uttar Pradesh [Alteration of Boundaries] Act, 1979. [8]. For the reasons afore-stated, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Collector, Sonepat by way of an appropriate representation or application and if such a recourse is followed by the petitioners, we direct the Collector, Sonepat to consider and dispose of the representation/application by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law, and after hearing the parties concerned. The Collector, Sonepat shall pass an appropriate order within a period of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13355 OF 2007. ::-5-:: six months from the date such representation/application is received and communicate the same to the parties to enable them to have further recourse in law, if so required. [9]. No orders as to costs. ( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE September 04,2008. ( T.S.THAKUR ) dinesh CHIEF JUSTICE