HC sets aside Gurugram judge’s orders on land title

GURUGRAM ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE HAD IN 2018 SET ASIDE ORDERS OF A CIVIL COURT DECLARING VILLAGERS THE OWNERS OF THE LAND

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has set aside Gurugram additional district judge (ADJ) JS Kundu’s 2018 orders, in which he had set aside a lower court order pertaining to the title of the contentious Gwal Pahari land in Gurugram. The civil judge (senior division) had in 2018 decided the question of title of the 464.6 acre Gwal Pahari land in favour of private parties.

Justice Jaishree Thakur of the HC on November 20 ordered that since the landowners and the Gurugram municipal corporation were aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the ADJ, Gurugram, his orders are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the district judge, Gurugram, with a direction to decide the civil appeals arising out of the judgment and decree of the trial court after giving due opportunity to all.

“Since the matter is of great importance and as a huge chunk of land, involving a large number of litigants, is involved, it is desirable that these appeals are taken up for hearing and decided by the district judge, Gurugram, himself, expeditiously. The parties are directed to appear before the district judge, Gurugram, on December 18, 2019,’’ the HC said.

By a common judgment, the civil judge (senior division), Gurugram, had in 2018 disposed off 118 civil suits filed by the villagers declaring them to be owners in possession over their respective suit lands. The court also declared the eviction notices issued by the Gurugram municipal corporation and mutation (numbers 96, 3,110 and 3,249) as illegal, null and void ab-initio and set aside the same. Aggrieved against the lower court judgment, the state government filed 226 civil appeals. The additional district judge, Gurugram, by a common order of August 31, 2018, set aside the lower court order.

ADJ ORDERS INCOMPREHENSIBLE, SAYS HIGH COURT

“The judgment and decree as passed by the additional district judge is incomprehensible.

At the first instance, this court is unable to understand as to how the “plaintiffs” in suit/proceedings filed before the revenue authorities could be planted as “appellants” in the appeal filed against the petitioners herein.

A reading of the impugned judgment would reflect non-application of mind,” the HC bench said.

The HC said the reasoning adopted by the additional district judge, while allowing the application for additional evidence, showed a total lack of judicial approach and against all cannons of law and procedure.

“It is abundantly clear that the observation of the first appellate court to the effect that...this court finds no necessity to keep the matter pending for the mere formality of granting opportunity to the respondents to lead evidence in rebuttal as the additional evidence led today.. while allowing the application for additional evidence, are absolutely against the law. The first appellate court ought to have given due opportunity to the petitioners and the other affected parties to lead evidence in rebuttal, particularly when the stakes of the parties, involving a huge chunk of land, was high,’’ the HC order said.