The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ IN T PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAR IGARH M) CWP-19264-2024 (O&M) 25 Date of decision :11.03.2025 KARAN SIN N SINGH Versus …Petitioner STATE OF H OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARSH BUNGER Present : ocate Mr. Monit Pal Singh, Advocate , Advocate and Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advo for the appellant. Ms. Upasana Dhawan, A.A.G., H .G., Haryana. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for caveator/respondent No.4. HARSH BUN H BUNGER, J. Petitioner (Karan Singh) has f tition has filed the instant writ petition under Article Articles 226/227 of the Constitution ing a ution of India, inter alia, seeking a writ in the na the nature of certiorari for setting asi 2020 ing aside the order dated 31.08.2020 (Annexure P ure P-1) passed by the learned Colle , the Collector, Gurugram; whereby, the petitioner ha er has been removed from the po llage the post of lambardar of Village Badshahpur T hpur Thethar, Tehsil Sohna, District G trict Gurugram. A further prayer has been mad
Decision
order n made for setting aside the order dated 15.12.2 5.12.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed b oner, ssed by the learned Commissioner, Gurugram Di am Division, Gurugram and order dat 3) er dated 01.07.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by th by the learned Financial Commiss , an mmissioner, Haryana; whereby, an GURPREET KAUR 2025.03.27 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh /8 Page 1/8 appeal and revision filed by the petitioner against the Collector’s order (Annexure P-1) has been dismissed. 2. Briefly, the petitioner was appointed as the lambardar of Village Badshahpur Thethar and had been working on the said post for the last more than 22 years. Respondent no.4-Naresh Kumar, who is stated to be the husband of Smt. Kavita Devi (the acting Sarpanch of the Village) submitted a complaint against the petitioner that he had encroached upon the shamlat land/rasta comprised in khasra No.57. 2.1 On receipt of the afore-said complaint, the learned Deputy Commissioner, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner; whereupon, the petitioner submitted his reply, inter alia, raising a plea that the complaint had been made against him on account of party faction in the village and there was nothing adverse against him. 2.2 It appears that the learned Deputy Commissioner-cum- Collector, Gurugram, vide order dated 31.08.2020 (Annexure P-1) removed the petitioner from the post of lambardar, by observing as under :- “6. After hearing the arguments of both the sides and examining the Misal, it was found that Shri Karan Singh, Lambardar etc. have illegally occupied the land of Gram Panchayat, Badshahpur Thethar by building a boundary wall, due to which the people of the village face a lot of trouble in commuting. By illegally occupying the land of Gram Panchayat by building a boundary wall, Shri Karan Singh, Lambardar has been negligent in his work and has not discharged his duties properly. Due to this reason, Shri Karan Singh Lambardar is not eligible to continue on the post of Lambardar. Therefore, I, as per Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Section 16(f) and Standing Order No.73 of Page 2/8 GURPREET KAUR 2025.03.27 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Additional Chief Secretary and Financial Commissioner, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Chandigarh, pass an order to remove Shri Karan Singh, Lambardar from the post of Lambardar due to negligence in his work and not discharging his duties properly and to remove him from the post of Lambardar and Block Development and Panchayat Officer Sohna is hereby directed to take immediate necessary action to remove illegal occupation from Panchayat land by filing a case under Section 7 of Punjab Village Common Land Act, 1961 in the court of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) authorized Assistant Collector First Class, Sohna, Tehsildar Sohna, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sohna and Police Station Officer Incharge, Sohna should be informed of this order.” 2.3 Feeling aggrieved against the Collector’s order (Annexure P-1), the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.12.2022 (Annexure P-2). 2.4 A further revision petition (ROR-66-2023) filed by the petitioner before the learned Financial Commissioner, has also been dismissed vide order dated 01.07.2024 (Annexure P-3). Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities below have erred in law and fact in passing the impugned orders, without considering that the petitioner had been working as a lambardar for the last more than 22 years and there had been no complaint of any sort against him. It is submitted that the complaint submitted by respondent No.4 against the petitioner was on account of party faction in the village and for GURPREET KAUR 2025.03.27 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 3/8 the reason that earlier in the year 1993, the then Gram Panchayat had filed a petition under Section 7 of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 against the father of respondent No.4, which came to be decided on 07.03.1995 and father of respondent No.4 was held to be in unauthorized possession. It is submitted that the authorities have wrongly relied upon the demarcation report conducted on 05.12.2019; wherein, the petitioner was never associated and neither the said demarcation report was in consonance with the prescribed rules and procedures, as no pucca points were fixed before carrying out the demarcation. It is further submitted that if the demarcation report dated 05.12.2019 is to be relied upon, even then the petitioner was reflected to be in possession of less than ½ karam. It is next submitted that there is another demarcation report dated 09.09.2020 conducted by the Field Kanungo, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurugram; wherein it was observed that the encroachment reflected through the red line in the site plan prepared with the help of DGPS machine is less than ½ karam and the same is liable to be ignored. It is further submitted that being aggrieved against the demarcation report made against the petitioner, the petitioner submitted an application dated 16.12.2022, requesting for demarcation of the land; whereupon, a Local Commissioner was also appointed, however, he made a report dated 22.01.2023 (Annexure P-6) clearly stating that respondent No.4-Naresh Kumar, does not allow the demarcation to get completed and the demarcation cannot be carried out without the fixation of mustil stones. It is stated that the petitioner is not in un-authorized possession of any panchayat/public land; accordingly, he prays that the impugned orders be set aside. 4. In the present case, Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate had appeared on GURPREET KAUR 2025.03.27 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 4/8 behalf of respondent No.4/Caveator and had opposed the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. During the course of hearing of this petition, on 20.08.2024, the following order was passed :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the demarcation report dated 09.09.2020 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner was found to have encroached to the extent of 17 square yards and 16 square yards in khasra No.57. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had removed the said encroachment at the spot, however, the said fact is disputed by learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent No.4. In view of the aforementioned facts, learned State counsel is called upon to get the spot of the encroachment by the petitioner, inspected by the concerned Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, who shall submit a report as to whether the petitioner has removed the encroachment as indicated in the demarcation report dated 09.09.2020 (Annexure P-5). Learned State counsel shall also inform the Court as to whether any petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961 was filed in pursuance of the directions contained in order dated 31.08.2020, passed by the District Collector, Gurugram. List for further consideration on 11.09.2024.” 6. Thereafter, on 15.10.2024, the following order was passed :- “Learned counsel for the State, in pursuance of order dated 03.10.2024, refers to communication dated 01.10.2024 received from the learned Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Gurugram, to submit that the petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961, already stands filed; Page 5/8 GURPREET KAUR 2025.03.27 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh and the same is now fixed for hearing on 23.10.2024. It is further informed that no encroachment, either kacha or pakka, has been found to be carried out by the petitioner (Karan Singh) over the rasta. However, learned counsel for the State seeks an accommodation to file reply by way of an affidavit of the concerned officer, indicating the aforementioned facts. At her request, adjourned to 29.10.2024. Let the needful be done before the next date of hearing.” 7. In compliance of afore-said order dated 15.10.2024, an affidavit has been submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Sohna; whereby, the following stand has been taken :- “3. That in compliance of above direction, it is submitted that an application under Section 7 of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 was filed on 30-10-2020 by the Gram Panchayat Badshahpur Tenthar before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Sohna, against the petitioner and twenty others. 4. That during trial of the case, the petitioner produced demarcation report dated 09-09-2020, in which his encroachment on area about 16-17 square yards was found over Khasra No.57. Thereafter, to confirm the above fact, a committee has been constituted in the chairmanship of Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Sohna. In its report dated 21-10-2024, the Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Sohna stated that the petitioner has removed his encroachment himself from the Panchayat land on the spot and presently, the petitioner has not encroached any disputed khasra numbers. 5. That as stated above, the petitioner had already removed his encroachment himself, no encroachment kacha or pakka of the petitioner was Page 6/8 GURPREET KAUR 2025.03.27 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh found over the land of Gram Panchayat at the time of passing the ejectment order. The deponent passed its ejectment order dated 23-10-2024 in this regard against the twenty other encroachers except the petitioner. Copy of said order dated 23-10-2024 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-1.” 7.1 A perusal of the above extracted contents of the affidavit submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Sohna would show that the petitioner had already removed his encroachment himself and no encroachment kacha or pakka of the petitioner was found over the land of Gram Panchayat at the time of passing the ejectment order and the ejectment order dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure R-1) had been passed against 20 other encroachers except the petitioner. 8. Upon considering the facts of the case, it is evident that petitioner-Karan Singh, has served as Lambardar for 22 years and no other complaint against the petitioner has been placed on record. Notably, in the demarcation of the area, the petitioner was found to be in possession of 16-17 sq. yards, which has already been removed by him. Furthermore, the ejectment order was passed against 20 other encroachers, excluding the petitioner, underscoring his fair conduct. 9. It is a settled principle that "to err is human" and when an individual takes corrective measures, the law should not impose an unduly harsh penalty. In my considered view, given the petitioner's fair conduct, his removal from the post of Lambardar would be harsh, extreme and unjustified. Accordingly, order dated 31.08.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Collector, Gurugram; order dated 15.12.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram and GURPREET KAUR 2025.03.27 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 7/8 order dated 01.07.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana; are set aside. 10. 11. The writ petition is allowed in the afore-stated terms. Pending application/s, if any, shall also stand closed. March 11, 2025 gurpreet (HARSH BUNGER) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No GURPREET KAUR 2025.03.27 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 8/8