Attar Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

CM Nos. 14230-31-CWP-2013

Applications are allowed, as prayed for.

CWP No. 18984 of 2013

The petitioner has challenged orders dated 30.01.2009, 10.06.2011 and 14.09.2011 passed by the Collector, Commissioner and Financial

Commissioner respectively, dismissing him from the post of Lambardar. The petitioner was Lambardar of village Narnaul, against whom an inquiry

was conducted by the Executive Magistrate in terms of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mohindergarh, on a complaint based on

various issues. In the inquiry report dated 16.10.2008, it was observed that he is in illegal possession of Municipal Council''s land on Teejon Wali

Pahari by constructing a house. He has not paid water charges of Rs. 24,687/- and has also not paid the house tax to the Municipal Council

amounting to Rs. 5,292/-, which was paid after the complaint on 19.09.2008. It is alleged that the petitioner, apprehending dispossession from the

house in dispute, filed the Civil Suit which was dismissed by the Trial Court but his appeal was disposed of by the Appellate Court observing that

the petitioner be not dispossessed except in due course of law. It is further alleged that on the basis of an inquiry report, the Collector,

Mohindergarh, vide his order dated 30.01.2009, dismissed the petitioner from the post of Lambardar on the ground of being in illegal possession

of Municipal Council''s land and non-payment of municipal dues of water charges and house tax. The order of the Collector was upheld by the

Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, on 10.06.2011 and the Financial Commissioner on 14.09.2011, inter alia, on the ground that the

petitioner has been found to be in illegal possession of the municipal land.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already paid water charges as well as house tax and the receipts have

been placed on record by way of CM No. 14231-CWP of 2013. However, he does not deny that the land, on which the house has been

constructed by the petitioner, belongs to the Municipal Council but it is alleged that it is in possession of the petitioner since the time of his

predecessors-in-interest for the last about 50 years. He has submitted that although the petitioner has not encroached upon the land of the

Municipal Council as it was encroached upon by his forefathers about 50 years ago but even if it is presumed that the encroachment is by the

petitioner as he is still residing in that house knowing fully well that the land underneath belongs to the Municipal Council, the action by the

Municipal Council cannot be taken u/s 181 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ""Act"") after 30 years. In this regard,

he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of The Municipal Committee Sirsa v. Arjan Dass, 1986 R.R.R. 237 : 1986 PLJ 550. After

hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion that the order of dismissal of the petitioner has

been rightly passed by all the authorities, namely, Collector, Divisional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner on the ground that the

petitioner has been found to be in illegal possession of the municipal land and has been in arrears of the water charges and house tax. Though the

petitioner has placed on record the receipts of the payment of the water charges and house tax, but these receipts relate to a date after the

complaint has been made, meaning thereby it was not the voluntary act of the petitioner, rather the aforesaid taxes have been paid in order to

escape from the rigors of provisions of Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 which provides for the grounds of dismissal of the

Headman. Even if the fact of non-payment of Municipal taxes is ignored, the illegal possession of the petitioner over the municipal land cannot be

ignored and the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in The Municipal Committee Sirsa''s case (supra) is not at all applicable to the facts and

circumstances of this case because in that case, the view taken by this Court is that after more than 30 years, the proceedings u/s 181 of the Act

cannot be initiated. It is not the case here that any proceedings had been initiated by the Municipal Council against the petitioner for recovering

possession of the municipal land, rather the question before this Court is as to ""whether a person, who is appointed as a Lambardar, can be

allowed to continue in the office of Lambardar if he is found to be in illegal possession of the municipal land"". In my considered opinion, such a

person does not deserve to remain on the post of Lambardar who is in illegal possession of the government/municipal/panchayat land as such a

person would undermine the post of Headman.

Thus, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed.