Follow Us
Satya Prakash
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, December 17
The Supreme Court has set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order in a decades-old land dispute in Sonepat district of Haryana after it found that the order was passed without hearing the parties to the case.
Principle of natural justice demanded that the party to the proceedings must be heard by the court before passing any order in relation to the subject matter of such proceedings, a Bench of Justice AM Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra said directing the high court to hear the matter afresh.
“We may reiterate the basic fundamental principle of law that no order can be passed by any Court in any judicial proceedings against any party to such proceedings without hearing and giving such party an opportunity of hearing,” the Bench said allowing the appeals filed by 43 families which were ordered to be evicted from a land claimed by local panchayat.
The petitioners had challenged the high court’s May 16, 2016, order directing the Deputy Commissioner concerned to seek a report regarding alleged unauthorized encroachment over the land owned by the Gram Panchayat, by constituting a fact finding inquiry of a team of Officers.
If the eviction order against the petitioners had attained finality and there was no legal impediment, the Deputy Commissioner was directed to ensure time bound action and restore the land to the Gram Panchayat with police help, if needed.
Petitioners’ counsel Vikram Punia said: “It was this order of the high court that 43 petitioners had challenged before the Supreme Court. The dispute is over 2130 kanals of land in village Sarsadh of District Sonepat and they were initially granted status quo regarding possession by the Supreme Court. Due to the Supreme Court’s order they could not be forcibly dispossessed from their land by the District administration.”
Punia said it’s a serious question of title of the land but till today it has not been adjudicated under section 13A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (PVCL) Act, 1961.
The high court had said it was not necessary to issue any notice to any of the private respondents except to the State and its Authorities considering the nature of the order it intend to pass for the disposal of the writ petition.
But the Supreme Court said: “The fact that a person is made a party to the judicial proceedings in relation to a certain dispute has a legitimate right to raise an objection that before passing any order in such proceedings, he should be at least heard and his views/stand in relation to the subject matter of the proceedings be taken into consideration. The Court is duty bound to hear all such person(s) by giving them an opportunity to place their stand”.
The land in question has been described as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Araji Khewat in official records and in the column of possession it was in the name of the petitioners as gair marusi meaning thereby that prior to Consolidation, the land in question was in the possession of proprietors and never vested in the Gram Panchayat. Copies of the Jamabandies for the years 1939-40, 1943-44 and 1962-63, the petitioners claimed.
In the year 1956, without any basis, by way of mutation No.1108 the entry in the column of ownership that earlier contained the words Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Araji Khewat were replaced by the words Panchayat Deh. The Consolidation proceedings started in the year 1958 and the Consolidation Authorities also described the land as Shamlat Deh and omitted the terms Hasab Rasad Araji Khewat, they contended.
The problem started in 1998 when an application was filed under Section 7 (2) of the PVCL Act before the Assistant Collector for ejecting the petitioners from the land in dispute.