NO. 273 2731 OF 2025 (O&M) RESERVED O VED ON: APRIL 29 & Anr. v. Ve State of Harya Haryana & Ors.

SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.09 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.2731 of 2 of 2025 (O&M) Commissioner’ sioner’s report. Therefore, the imp impugned orders should be quashed. The The petitioners also prayed for an for an interim stay against the demolition of on of their pucca constructed house d ouse during the pendency of writ petition.

3. The Gram Panchayat Nautana, Th tana, Tehsil Kanina, District Mahendragarh agarh through the Sarpanch filed app ed application under Section 7 of the 1961 Act for eviction of petitioners from th from the pucca constructed house done on the ga gair mumkin rasta belonging to the to the Panchayat.

4. It is the case of Gram Panchay It nchayat that a path in Khewat No.410 Khatau Khatauni No.489 was under ownersh nership of the Gram Panchayat and the rasta thereon, is used for incoming an ing and outgoing of people, their tractors, camel camel carts etc. Petitioner No.1 has s built a permanent house of East-11” West West-11”, South-16”6’, North 16”6’ 16”6’ admeasuring an area of 410 square feet and and petitioner No.2 has built a ilt a concrete house on East-11’, West-22”, Sou ”, South-20”, North 19”6’ admeasuri easuring an area of 432 square feet, illegally/ u ally/ unauthorisedly on the rasta.

5. Notice was given for removing the No ing the illegal construction by the respondents. Th nts. The petitioners were summoned a oned as per rules. The petitioners’ advocate was g was given an opportunity to file reply le reply but no reply was filed on behalf of the p f the petitioners. Thereafter, the argu e arguments of the parties were heard. A mea measurement report in File No. e No.93/RT/Measurement dated December 28, 8, 2017 done by the Halqa Girdaw Girdawar Dhanonda was brought on record. From d. From the said report, it transpired th ired that petitioner No.1 illegally occupied 410 0 square feet area and had constru onstructed a pucca house of 11” in the east, 20” st, 20” in South, 13”6’ in North. The r . The rest of plot was occupied by petitioner No. r No.2. The advocate for petitio petitioner No.2 contested proceedings by by filing written arguments on his on his behalf though no reply was SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.09 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.2731 of 2 of 2025 (O&M) filed. It was c was contended in the written argum arguments that the measurement report in file N file No.93/RT/Measurement dated Jan ted January 12, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “ to as “2018 report”) was an incorrect orrect one as the local Girdawar did not appear appear to prove the same. It was fur further contended before the learned Assista ssistant Collector that none of the w the witnesses appeared to prove the Spot Inspe Inspection Report and the signature nature of the witness Raj Kumar Putrohkar in th in the said report, was fake becaus ecause the witness was illiterate and could not s d not sign.

6. As per 2018 report, the concrete h As rete house of petitioner No.2 was of a length of 1 th of 11” in East, 11” in West, 20” in 20” in South and 19”6’ in North admeasuring a ring an area of 432 square feet. It w t. It was submitted on behalf of petitioner No.2 r No.2 that there was no encroachmen chment on the path as alleged by the Gram Panc Panchayat as vehicles are plying on ing on the same. Furthermore, it was contended tended that the witnesses who were s re shown to be present in the 2018 report we ort were not present during the spot in spot inspection and the signatures of witnesses, na ses, namely, Narender Kumar and Um nd Umed Singh, Chowkidar were obtained later. later. It was also urged on behalf of half of the petitioner No.2 that a civil case wa e was filed by him against the t the Gram Panchayat, before G.A.C.J.S.D, , Kanina, and a status-quo order was passed therein. Therefore, the the possession of the petitioner No. er No.2 could not be disturbed in proceedings un ngs under Section 7 of the 1961 Act.

7. The learned Assistant Collector Th lector-respondent No.4 took into consideration t ation the submissions made by learned learned advocates for the parties, written argume rguments along with the record pert d pertaining to Section 7 of the 1961 Act. Upo Upon hearing learned advocates an ates and perusing the record, he was of the opi he opinion that a civil case was filed s filed by petitioner No.2 which concerned an a an area in Khewat No.265 Khatauni atauni No.343 Khasra No.240/1/2 SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.09 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.2731 of 2 of 2025 (O&M) (1-6). However owever, from the measurement report report dated December 28, 2017 submitted by G d by Girdawar Halqa, it appeared that that the disputed area of land is situated in jer jer khewat No.410 Khatauni No. No.489, jer Khasra No.240/2. Relying on the on the measurement report of Girdaw irdawar Halqa, learned Assistant Collector-respo respondent No.4 passed orders rders of eviction against petitioners from rs from illegal occupation of the Panc anchayat land within a period of 30 days, vide s, vide impugned order dated January nuary 04, 2019.

8. An appeal was instituted by the An y the petitioners on January 23, 2019, being nu numbered 53/VCL. It was argued o rgued on behalf of petitioner No.1 that he had bui ad built his house on his own land in k in khasra No.245 admeasuring 07 marla in a in gair mumkin abadi and not ot on Panchayat rasta land. Therefore, relia reliance on the measurement report report dated December 28, 2017 was completel pletely erroneous. Since the Sarpa Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat nurtured a grud a grudge against the appellants, there s, therefore, a false and frivolous case had been i been instituted against them.

9. It was contended on behalf of pet It of petitioner No.2 that as per the contention of G of Gram Panchayat, area of 217.2 .25 square feet was illegally occupied, there , therefore, question of petitioner No. r No.2 occupying 432 square feet did not or coul r could not arise. The house of appell appellants was constructed 60-70 years ago and o and there was nothing on recor record to show that the said constructions w tions were illegal.

10. After hearing the contentions of Af ns of learned counsel for parties and examining ining the documents on record, the d, the Collector-respondent No.3 held that the pe the petitioners were rightly evicted fro ted from the disputed land on the basis of measu measurement report dated December ember 28, 2017. Therefore, there was no need fo eed for any interference with the order e order dated January 04, 2019. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.09 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.2731 of 2 of 2025 (O&M)

11. A revision petition challenging th A ging the order under appeal was instituted on J on June 23, 2020. The Commissio missioner Gurugram-respondent No.2 vide ord e order dated October 18, 2024 di 024 dismissed the said revision petition. It wa It was submitted that the petitioners tioners-revisionists had inherited Khasra No.245 o.245, 240/2 and 242 by way of inh of inheritance. The constructions were made on t de on their own land and not on the lan the land of Gram Panchayat. The measurement c ment could not have been done by th by the Commissioner when the crop was stand standing in the area. The petitioners tioners were not allowed to raise proper objectio bjections on the measurement report da port dated December 28, 2017 by the Assistant C stant Collector. The petitioners were s were being evicted from their pucca construc onstructions due to electoral rivalry ivalry between the Sarpanch of Gram Panchay anchayat and the family members bers of the petitioners. It was recorded in the in the order passed by the Commiss mmissioner-respondent No.2 that despite several everal opportunities being granted to ted to the petitioners they did not file their reply reply before the Assistant Collector llector-respondent No.4. Written arguments wer ts were presented on behalf of Gram f Gram Panchayat and also the petitioner No. r No.2 and upon considering wri g written and oral arguments, necessary order y order of eviction was passed by respo y respondent No.4 on January 04, 2019 and the sa the same was upheld by respondent N dent No.3 on February 24, 2020.

12. On perusal of record, respondent On ndent No.2-Commissioner came to the finding t ding that land in question was a gair gair mumkin rasta belonging to Gram Panchay nchayat, Nautana. The demarcation r ation report dated December 28, 2017 of Halqa Halqa Girdawar also clearly showed il wed illegal construction made by the petitioners. ioners. Petitioner No.1 claimed that k that khasra No.245 belonged to him and petitio petitioner No.2 claimed that khasra hasra No.240/2 (0-4) was a land belonging to G g to Gram Panchayat on which gai gair mumkin rasta had been constructed. T ted. Therefore, any illegal construction ruction on the said rasta had to be SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.09 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.2731 of 2 of 2025 (O&M) removed. Ther . Therefore, respondent No.2 found th und that no error was committed vide impugned ugned orders passed by respondents dents No.3 and 4 and dismissed the appeal filed nists. al filed by the petitioners-revisionists.

13. This Court has heard learned cou Th d counsel for the petitioners and perused the ma the material on record.

14. It is apparent that despite several It veral opportunities of filing their replies before efore respondent No.4, the petitione titioners deliberately failed and neglected to do d to do so. The petitioners despite bei ite being given opportunities did not challenge t enge the Report dated December 28, 2 r 28, 2017. In the circumstances, the petitioners’ ioners’ contention that the Assistant C stant Collector did not give them an opportunity rtunity to challenge the report is w is without any basis. Learned Assistant Colle t Collector-respondent No.4 consider nsidered the written arguments submitted by d by Gram Panchayat and also pet so petitioner No.2 and also the documents ava ts available on record, before coming oming to the finding that illegal constructions h tions have been made by the petitio petitioners on the land of Gram Panchayat and at and therefore, eviction order was required to be passed under Section 7 of the of the 1961 Act. Accordingly, the sam the same was passed.

15. Once an opportunity of filing of re On g of reply has been granted to the petitioners and rs and they deliberately chose not to ot to do so, then they cannot be permitted to tu d to turn around and contend that the i at the impugned orders have been passed in breac breach of principles of natural justi l justice, without been given an opportunity of ity of hearing. The report of the f the halqa Patwari not being challenged, all ed, all the findings made therein remai remain uncontroverted.

16. When it is specific contention W tention of the petitioners that measurement w ment was not done in their presence sence then how an argument that the witnesses were not present at the time of su survey has been raised by the petitioners, is p , is perplexing to the mind of this f this Court. No explanation has SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.09 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.2731 of 2 of 2025 (O&M) been provided vided as to how the petitioners becam became aware of the fact that at the time of sur of survey being conducted, the witne witnesses were not present and their signature natures were obtained later by the by the official concerned. The petitioners hav rs have sought to raise seriously d sly disputed questions of facts which cannot b nnot be entertained in a writ petition. tition. A beneficial reference may be made to A to Apex Court judgment in “Sh hubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam and o nd others” 2021 (20) SCC 454, for for the aforesaid proposition. Relevant extrac extract thereof is reproduced hereinaf reinafter: “xxx “ 26 It is well settled that the 26. extraordinary writ jurisdiction Constitution of India, does not Co questions of facts. It is not for t comparative assessment of conflic decide which one is acceptable. d Xxx” Xx the High Court exercising its under Article 226 of the not adjudicate hotly disputed for the High Court to make a nflicting technical reports and

17. The petitioners also failed to show Th o show as to why the report dated December 28, er 28, 2017 of Halqa Girdawar shou r should not be accepted in the absence of any of any allegation of capriciousness or ess or mala fide intention against the official co ial concerned. From the facts of the of the case, it is clear that the contention of p n of petitioner No.2 is that he has inhe as inherited Khasra No.240/1 and

242. A civil ca ivil case was filed by petitioner No.2 a No.2 and order of status-quo was obtained in resp in respect of Khasra No.240/1/2 (1-6) 6) and 242 (0-14). However, the Gram Panc Panchayat’s land is situated at Kha Khasra No.240/2 on which the allegation of n of illegal construction by the p the petitioners was proved in proceedings un ngs under Section 7 of the Act.

18. In the light of aforesaid discus In discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in the in the impugned orders dated January anuary 04, 2019 (Annexure P-4), February 24, 2 24, 2020 (Annexure P-6) and Octobe October 18, 2024 (Annexure P-8) SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.09 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.2731 of 2 of 2025 (O&M) passed by res by respondents No.2 to 4. None one of the orders merit any interference. A nce. Accordingly, the writ petition is on is dismissed. Connected applications, if any, are Co ny, are also accordingly disposed

19. of. K SIBAL) (DEEPAK SIB DGE JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) (L JUDGE , 2025 MAY 07, 2025 shalini Whether Speak Whether report Speaking/reasoned: reportable: Yes/No Ye Yes/No Ye SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.09 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh