Sushil and others vs State of Haryana and others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to prepare the revenue record in accordance with the provisions of Section 32 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are residents of Village Faizpur Ninana, Tehsil and District Bagpat (U.P.). The agricultural land in dispute measuring 168 hectares was previously situated in village Faizpur Ninana but due to the Yamuna river action the aforesaid land has been shifted to Village Badoli, Tehsil and District Sonepat. In pursuance of the Dikshit Commissioner Award, the dispute of boundaries between the State of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh abutting the Yamuna river has been settled and the boundaries have been adjusted in pursuance of arbitration award and pillars have been refixed. The disputed land of Village Faizpur Ninana has been transferred to Village Badoli, District Sonepat. Now, the petitioners through this writ petition are praying for direction to the respondents to prepare the record of rights in accordance with law.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused documents annexed with the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this writ petition can be disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents since identical issues have been decided by this Court in C.W.P. No. 8979 of 2009 � Charan Singh versus State of Haryana and another, decided on 17.08.2011 (Annexure P/4).

I am of the opinion that the identical issues have been decided in the aforesaid writ petition. Without issuing notice to the respondents, respondents are directed to prepare record of rights qua the land of the petitioners which has been transferred to Village Badholi, Tehsil and District Sonepat from village Faizpur Nianan under the Dikshit Award. This writ petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. Charan Singh''s case (supra). I hope the authority will do the needful at the earliest keeping in view peculiar circumstances of this case.

Till the completion of the process for preparation of final record of rights u/s 32 of the Act, parties are directed to maintain status quo.