HC bins land ownership plea of Faridabad MC

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, June 11

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that 104 kanals and nine marlas in Ballabgarh, Faridabad district, does not belong the Faridabad Municipal Corporation. With this judgment, Justice Ritu Bahri has ended a three-decade-long legal tussle.

The case has its genesis in a civil suit filed by Ram Chand and other plaintiffs for declaration that the land situated within the revenue estate of Lakkarpur village in Ballabgarh tehsil was owned and possessed by them. Directions were sought for restraining the defendant, Faridabad Complex Administration, from claiming any right or possession. The complex administration was later converted into a municipal corporation.

Counsel for the defendant Puneet Bali told the Bench that the land was erroneously shown to be vested in the Lakkarpur gram panchayat after enactment of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961. Thereafter, mutation entered by the revenue authorities was attested in favour of the gram panchayat.

The land was never used for common purposes of villagers, as shown in the revenue records. The property’s possession remained with the plaintiffs as proprietors. The Bench was told that the Lakkarpur gram panchayat ceased to exist after enactment of the Faridabad Complex (Regulation and Development) Act, 1971. The revenue estate of Lakkarpur village, including the gram panchayat area, was included in the Faridabad Complex Administration.

It was added that the land in dispute was excluded from the area of the Lakkarpur gram sabha vide a notification before commencement of the Act on January 15, 1972; and the land ceased to vest in the gram panchayat with effect from January 13, 1972.

The plaintiffs subsequently requested the complex administration not to initiate proceedings for their eviction under the Haryana Public Premises Act. It refused, resulting in filing of the suit, which was decided in the plaintiffs’ favour by courts below.

Bali argued that the plaintiffs had led sufficient evidence to show their predecessors were described as owners of the land. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the records, Justice Bahri asserted that the appeal by the complex administration deserved to be dismissed.

“This court is of the view that the suit filed by plaintiffs has been rightly decreed by both courts below as they have led sufficient evidence to prove that the land is owned and possessed by them as co-sharers in the shamlat deh of the village. No illegality, much less perversity, has been found in the impugned judgments, warranting interference by this court. The evidence has been appreciated in the right perspective and resultantly, finding no merit, the present appeal is dismissed,” Justice Bahri stated.