Civil Writ Petition No.15664 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15664 of 1992 Date of Decision:19.05.2011 Ram Rattan @ Rattna and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Rajiv Prashad, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The combination of the facts culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the petitioners were joint owners and in possession of the land in question, in equal shares, measuring 72 kanals 18 marlas, situated in the revenue estate of village Darra Kalan , District Kurukshetra. The land was acquired by the State of Haryana, for public purpose, for the development and establishment of new Grain and Vegetable Market at Kurukshetra, to be set-up by the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board-respondent No.2(for brevity “the respondent- Board”). The Land Acquisition Collector passed the award on 08.01.1981. The petitioners claimed that the land of the following persons was also acquired by the State of Haryana through the medium of same award:- a) Sarup Singh : 116 kanals b) Petitioners : 72 kanals 18 marlas Civil Writ Petition No.15664 of 1992 2 c) Karnail Singh : 72 kanals son of Sarup Singh d) Balwant Singh : 45 kanals 2 marlas 2. According to the petitioners, as per oustee policy of the Board, 10% of the plots were reserved in the market yard for being allotted at a fixed price to those persons, whose lands have been acquired, on the basis of seniority to be determined keeping in view the maximum area of acquired land in this context. The petitioners further claimed that although their land measuring 72 kanals 18 marlas was acquired and their seniority falls at serial No.2 but their claim of allotment of plots was negatived by the respondents on illegal grounds. 3. The petitioners did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the action and for direction to the respondent-Board, to allot the Booth/plots to them at reserved price as per original oustee policy, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The case set-up by the petitioners, in brief, insofar as relevant, was that although their joint land measuring 72 kanals 18 marlas was acquired and their seniority falls at serial No.2 but their claim of allotment of plots was negatived by the respondents on illegal grounds. They(respnodents) did not allot the plots to them, as per oustee policy, despite various requests and representation(Annexure P-4) and legal notice dated 21.08.1990(Annexure P-6). It was also claimed that the subsequent revised oustee policy by means of resolution No.18 dated 23.11.1987 restricting and reducing the quota of allotment to the oustees from 10% to 7% was termed to be arbitrary and illegal. It was averred that the names of the petitioners were illegally excluded from consideration. 5. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the petitioners that although they were entitled to the allotment of Booth/plots under old as well as the revised oustee policy, but their claim was negatived on the pretext that their holdings(land) was to be considered separately and they cannot be treated as joint owners. On the basis of aforesaid Civil Writ Petition No.15664 of 1992 3 grounds, the petitioners claimed the allotment of the plots/Booth on reserved price, in the manner indicated hereinabove. 6. The respondent-Board contested the claim of the petitioners and filed its written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioners. However, the factual matrix of acquisition of land of the land-owners including the petitioners and existence of oustee policy was admitted. According to the contesting respondent-Board, as per information supplied by the Patwari, 36 kanals 9 marlas have been shown in the name of petitioner Rattan Singh @ Rattna and 36 kanals 9 marlas have been shown in the name of his brother petitioner Vir Bhan @ Beeru sons of Nanak. The acquisition of area of land of other co-owners was also admitted. In all, according to the contesting respondent-Board, since the names of the petitioners figured at serial Nos.31 and 32 of the list of owners supplied by the Patwari, so, they were not held entitled to the plots/Booth as per oustee policy. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondent-Board has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. That is how, I am seized of the matter. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 8. As is evident from the record that the joint land of the petitioners measuring 72 kanals 18 marlas was acquired by the State for the respondent-Board for the development and establishment of new Grain and Vegetable Market at Kurukshetra, by way of award dated 08.01.1981 along with the land of Sarup Singh measuring 116 kanals, Karnail Singh 72 kanals, Balwant Singh 45 kanals 2 marlas and so on and so forth. 9. It is also not a matter of dispute that the land-owners are entitled to Civil Writ Petition No.15664 of 1992 4 the allotment of plots/Booth at a reserved price, in view of the oustee policy, as per seniority prepared on the basis of their respective area of acquired land by the Government. The claim of the petitioners was negatived only on the basis of report(Annexure R-1), wherein the Patwari was stated to have supplied the information that the property of the petitioners was not joint. Here, to my mind, the respondent-Board has slipped into a deep legal error in this relevant connection in believing the vague report of the Patwari, which has no legal sanctity and ignoring the revenue record. 10. What is not disputed here is that the bare perusal of entry at serial No.284 of Notification(Annexure P-1), would go to show that the petitioners have been described as joint owners and in possession of their land measuring 72 kanals 18 marlas in equal shares. Not only that, Exhibit P-3 is the certificate issued by the Tehsildar based on the report of Ram Sahai Patwari that the joint land measuring 72 kanals 18 marlas of the petitioners was acquired, as per revenue record (Jamabandi), for the new Anaj Mandi at Kurukshetra. 11. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record from the revenue record and acquisition Notification(Annexure P-1), that the petitioners were joint owners and were in possession in equal shares of their acquired land measuring 72 kanals 18 marlas. No material much less cogent is forthcoming on record even to suggest remotely that the land of the petitioners was ever partitioned, in view of Chapter 9 of The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. 12. It is now well settled principle of law that unless the joint agricultural land is duly partitioned and reflected as such in the revenue record, it will be deemed to be joint land of the petitioners. It is nobody's case, at any stage, that the joint land of the petitioners was ever partitioned. In the absence of the same, to me, no implicit reliance can be placed on the vague report of Patwari, which is without any basis, to deny the claim of the petitioners of allotment of plots/Booth at reserved price, in view of the oustee policy. In this manner, the argument of the Civil Writ Petition No.15664 of 1992 5 learned counsel that since the petitioners fall at serial No.2, in terms of their joint acquired land, so, they are entitled to the allotment of plots/Booth at reserved price, in view of the oustee policy existing at the time of acquisition of their joint land, has considerable force and the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. Therefore, it is held that the acquired land of the petitioners was joint and they are entitled to the benefits emanating from the oustee policy in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is hereby accepted with costs. Respondent No.2 is directed to treat the acquired land of the petitioners as a joint land and then to allot the plots/Booth to them, in view of oustee policy existed at the time of acquisition, if they are otherwise entitled to it, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. May 19, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No