Rattan Singh v. State Of Haryana & ORS

CWP-19210-2016 -1HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19210-2016 Date of Decision: November 13, 2017 Rattan Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL 1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

Yes/No 2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No.

3.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No .......

Present:

Mr.Ramender Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. ........

SURYA KANT, J.

The petitioner was directed vide order dated 26.04.2017 to show that he has ever been in actual physical possession of the land in dispute which is a part of total land measuring 264K-14M situated in village Dharchana, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari. This entire land was recorded as Jumla Mustarka Malkan and its ownership was mutated in favour of the Gram Panchayat with whom the 'management' and 'control' of the land vests under the provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948. Vide the impugned order, the petitioner's claim qua ownership of part of the said land has been declined by the authorities. It was in this backdrop that this Court vide above mentioned order asked the petitioner to show that he has ever been in actual possession of the land in dispute or that the finding returned by the Financial Meenu 2017.11.20 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

CWP-19210-2016 -2Commissioner that he has never been in individual cultivating possession of the land is contrary to record.

[2] Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that as per the revenue record comprising Khasra Girdawari, Gram Panchayat is recorded as the owner in cultivating possession of the land in dispute. That being so, the concurrent findings returned by the authorities below are in conformity with the revenue record and, thus, calls for no interference. [3] Dismissed.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE November 13, 2017 ( SUDHIR MITTAL ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No Meenu 2017.11.20 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh