High Courts

Hoshiar Singh vs Collector, Gurgaon and ors.

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 28 February 1992 · Citation: (1992) 2 CurLJ 69 : (1992) 2 LJR 623 : (1992) PLJ 310 : (1992) 2 RRR 266

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.K.Bali, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 14393 of 1989
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

30 paragraphs · 695 words

V.K. Bali, J.—This order will dispose of a set of 13 Civil Writ Petitions i.e. Nos. 14393 to 14396 of 1989, 3330 to 3336 of 1990, 3916

and 3917 of 1990 which involve the same questions of fact and law. The facts have been taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 14393 of 1989.

2.

The petitioners were proceeded under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as applicable to the State of Haryana for their

eviction from the land in dispute. By way of written statement, it was pleaded by the petitioner in the aforesaid proceedings that they were in fact

owners of the land and the Panchayat had nothing to do with the same. They claimed title to the property. After the Gram Panchayat had led

evidence, the petitioners with a view to summon Patwari deposited diet money and process fee. It is not disputed that such process fee and diet

money were deposited but the same was done slightly late. Vide orders dated January 25, 1989 the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Nuh ordered

the eviction of the petitioners and burdened them with some penalty. Against the order aforesaid, an appeal was carried before the Collector which

was dismissed vide orders dated May 2, 1989. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid orders in these Writ Petitions

3.

At this stage, it will be useful to reproduce the order passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade which runs thus:

File has been put up. Case called and counsel for the parties are present. Counsel for the respondent prays for adjournment today also for

evidence. Whereas on the previous date of hearing, last opportunity was granted. Therefore, the evidence of the respondent is closed and

respondents Hoshiar and Azad, sons of Jawala are ordered to be ejected from the land in dispute Khewat No. 464, Khatauni No. 617, Khasra

No. 31/5/2 measuring 4 Kanal 10 Marlas situated in village Jorasi, Tehsil Nuh. It is also ordered that they will pay Rs. 3000/ per acre per year as

fine. Warrant of possession be issued. File be consigned to office after compliance.

Even though the process fee and diet money were deposited little late, the Assistant Collector in order to find out as to whether the petitioners

were unauthorised occupants or had a title and to do complete justice between the parties was required to give one more opportunity. This is so in

particular when the petitioners had deposited the diet money and process fee for summoning the Revenue Patwari. The Assistant Collector, on the

other hand, proceeded to decide the case on the same day without even discussing the evidence that was brought on the record by the Gram

Panchayat. An order of eviction was passed without even prima facie holding on the strength of evidence that might have come on the record that

the petitioners were unauthorised occupants. In my considered view, the order is cryptic and non speaking and has been arrived at without

discussing anything or applying the mind. It lacks the very essentials of judicial or a quasijudicial order and for that reason alone deserves to be set

aside. In the appeal carried by the petitioners also, the Collector erred while rejecting the contention of the petitioners. In the facts and

circumstances of the case, they deserve another opportunity to lead evidence and to prove their title.

4.

For the reasons stated above, these writ petitions are allowed. Orders Annexures P1 and P3 are quashed. A direction is given to the Assistant

Collector Nuh to decide the case on merits after giving opportunities to the petitioners to lead their evidence. It is, however made clear that the

petitioners would conclude their evidence at the most within two hearings and will themselves be responsible for effecting service of the witnesses

they would like to examine in the case. Inasmuch as the diet money and process fee were deposited little late the petitioners are burdened with Rs.

100/ as costs in each case and payment of costs will be a precondition for permitting the petitioners to lead evidence. Parties, through their

counsel, are directed to appear before Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Nuh on 9.4.1992.