Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Gwal Pahadi row: Land in question was village common land, reveals revenue record

It was a gram panchayat land (shamlat deh) and could have been transferred to municipal corporation and not individuals, the HC bench orally said.

Updated: May 04, 2017 21:32 IST
Hindustan Times, Chandigarh

Revenue records produced by the Haryana government before the Punjab and Haryana high court have revealed that the controversial 464 acres of Gwal Pahari land in Millenium City was common village land and could not have been transferred to individuals.

The high court also observed that the mutation whereby title of land was changed in the 80s was wrong. It was a gram panchayat land (shamlat deh) and could have been transferred to municipal corporation and not individuals, the HC bench orally said.

Following the revelation, the Punjab and Haryana high court has now directed the Haryana government to submit details as to how much land out has been encroached upon by the next date of hearing. High court also asked the municipal corporation to start process of vacating land from individual occupants.

The direction was issued by high court bench of justice Justice SS Saron and Justice Darshan Singh while hearing a petition seeking a CBI probe on the controversial mutation of land.

Revenue officials such as tehsildar/naib tehsildar and revenue patwari and Kanoongo having the charge of village Gwal Pahari were present in court and produced record pertaining to the land.

The high court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Harinder Dhingra, a city resident, seeking CBI probe arguing that bureaucrats, politicians and local revenue officials were involved in the issue. An independent probe by an agency such as the CBI was required to ascertain the people behind involved in the mutation of prime land, he had argued.

As per the petitioner, ownership of the disputed land was with the gram panchayat of Gwal Pahari since 1940 and transferred to municipal corporation of Gurugram in 2010. Then financial commissioner (revenue),Yudhvir Singh Malik was not competent to pass an order on mutation in 2012, which the petitioner alleged had “favoured” some builders. Malik had passed the order on the application of a private party challenging the 2010 transfer of land.

Malik’s decision was challenged by MCG before financial commissioner Surina Rajan, who stayed the order. But in October 2015, SS Dhillon, an IAS officer, restored the same. Thereafter, the matter had reached the state government and a decision was taken for mutation of land in favour in MCG. But this order too was declared void in January, 2017 by district collector TL Satyaprakash. District collector ‘s decision has now been stayed by Gurgaon divisional commissioner D Suresh in February, as per the petitioner.