CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts(1986) 03 P&H CK 0039

Maru vs Collector, Rohtak

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 31 March 1986 · Citation: (1986) PLJ 314 : (1986) RRR 117

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.S.Tewatia, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 5413 of 1975

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 399 words

D.S. Tewatia, J. (Oral)

1.

This petition was allowed in the first instance vide judgment dated 25.1.1983. Thereafter, a review application was filed at the instance of the complainant Daryao Singh, respondent No. 3, and vide judgment dated 20.1.1986, the aforesaid judgment was recalled and the petition was directed to be listed for rehearing.

2.

The petitioners had taken up the stand before the Assistant Collector that their house was built some fifty years ago and they had been in possession since then and that besides the said house there was no other house owned by them in the village. The Assistant Collector disposed of the evidence pertaining to the old possession by a line that the petitioners had failed to prove the factum of their possession, as they have not adduced any documentary evidence. The Collector merely affirmed that finding and although a point was raised before him that the petitioners owned only one residential house in question yet he gave no finding thereon.

3.

The order of the Assistant Collector to the extent that he insisted on a written proof regarding possession and declined to go into the oral evidence in that regard is clearly erroneous and so was that of the Collector in appeal affirming the said observation. I, therefore, set aside both the orders and remand the case back to the Assistant Collector for a fresh decision.

4.

It may also observe that since the petitioners had raised the question of title, it would be desirable for the Assistant Collector to decide the matter in terms of section 13A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation), Act 1961, in view of the decision of this Court in Tara Chand and Fateh Singh v. Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha of Village Atail, 1979 PLJ 1, after receiving fresh evidence from both sides.

5.

The parties are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector, Jhajjar on 30.4.1986.

6.

I am informed that in the meantime a new tehsil of Kosli has been created and the parties are not sure as to whether their village falls in Tehsil Kosli or Tehsil Jhajjar. The Assistant Collector, Jhajjar, in case he does not have the jurisdiction, shall direct the parties to appear before the competent Assistant Collector and shall despatch the relevant record to the same officer.

7.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.