The High Court
Case Details
CWP-23798 of 2024 23798 of 2024 (O&M) Sr. No.132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CWP-23798 of 2024 23798 of 2024 (O&M) Reserved on 01.09.2025 Reserved on 01.09.2025 Pronounced on :15.09.2025 Pronounced on and others Shish Ram and others State of Haryana State of Haryana Versus …Petitioners …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Ketan Mr. Ketan Antil, Advocate, for the petitioners. for the petitioner Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional A.G., Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional A.G., Haryana and Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional A.G., Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. *** LAPITA BANERJI, J. LAPITA BANERJI filed under Articles 226/227 of Challenge in the present petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of Challenge in the present petition the Constitution of India, is to the order dated February 23, 2012 the Constitution of India is to the order dated February 23, 2012, (Annexure P-1), passed by the Assistant Collector
Legal Reasoning
passed by the Assistant Collector First Class, Narnaul, Class, Narnaul, (for short ‘AC’); order dated September 10, 2014, passed order dated September 10, 2014 passed by the Collector, District Mahendragarh at Narnaul (Annexure P-3) Mahendragarh 3) as well as the order dated September 15, 2023, passed by the Commissioner, G September 15, 2023 passed by the Commissioner, Gurugram (Annexure P-5). 2. By the aforesaid impugned orders, the By the aforesaid impug ed orders, the application filed by the under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Gram Panchayat (for short ‘G.P.’) under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Gram Panchayat Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1961 Act’) was allowed by the AC affirmed by the Collector and was allowed by the AC, which was affirmed by the Collector and reaffirmed by the Commissioner. reaffirmed by the 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- Brief facts of the case are as follows: Brief facts of the case are as follows: VANDANA 2025.09.17 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 5 CWP-23798 of 2024 23798 of 2024 (O&M) i) The disputed land admeasuring about 1 kanal 15 marlas is situated The disputed land admeasuring about 1 kanal 15 marlas is situated The disputed land admeasuring about 1 kanal 15 marlas is situated in Khewat No.40 Min, Khatoni No.157, Khasra in Khewat No .40 Min, Khatoni No.157, Khasra No.120/2 Village Bakhrija, Tehsil Narnaul. Bakhrija, Tehsil Narnaul. ii) The said land is a part and parcel of the total land The land is a part and parcel of the total land admeasuring about 12 kanals 9 marlas situated in the aforesaid khatoni about tuated in the aforesaid khatoni number and recorded as ‘Gair Mumkin Playground and recorded as ‘ Playground’ which is shown to be owned by the GP in the Jamabandi for the year 2002 owned by the GP the Jamabandi for the year 2002-2003. iii) The G.P. instituted proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 The G.P. instituted eviction proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 Act but the petitioners who were defendant Act but the defendants No.1 to 4 in the afore proceedings, did not put in appearance proceedings, put in appearance. Consequently, the order dated February 23, 2012, was passed by the AC dated February passed by the AC ordering the the petitioners from the disputed land. eviction of the petitioners from the disputed land. eviction of iv) The petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector, Narnaul wherein The petitioners filed an appeal before the The petitioners filed an appeal before the
Legal Reasoning
it was contended that summons had not been it was had not been served upon them. The peon who was to effect service had given peon who was to effect service had given a false report, with regard to the pasting of the summons on the wall of the construction, to the pasting of the summons on the wall of the construction to the pasting of the summons on the wall of the construction owned/occupied by the petitioners. owned by the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners contended in the appeal, that the ejectment order was pas contended that the ejectment order was passed ex parte eing granted to the petitioners, without any opportunity of hearing being granted to the petitioners, without any opportunity of hearing b in breach of principles of natural justice. in breach of principles of natural justice. in breach of principles of natural justice. v) The Collector after hearing the parties held that The Collector after hearing the parties held that as per the dated November 25, 2007 (which remained demarcation report dated November 25, 2007 (which remained demarcation report unchallenged), the illegal occupation of the petitioners’ house unchalleng the illegal occupation of the petitioners’ house had already been recorded and no document was already o document was brought on record by the petitioners petitioners to prove their ownership. to prove their ownership. Accordingly, their appeal was dismissed. was dismissed. vi) VANDANA 2025.09.17 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document In the the revision petition filed by the petitioners, revision petition filed by the petitioners, the Commissioner- respondent No.2 observed that in the revenue records respondent No.2 in the revenue records the disputed Page 2 of 5 CWP-23798 of 2024 23798 of 2024 (O&M) land was recorded as “Gair Mumkin Khel Kood Maidan’ land was Gair Mumkin Khel Kood Maidan’ and the demarcation report clearly showed demarcation report clearly showed demarcation report clearly showed that the petitioners had encroached over the Panchayat land by constructing a pukhta wall encroached over the Panchayat land by constructing a encroached over the Panchayat land by constructing a and a house. and a house. vii) Furthermore, i t was specifically recorded in the demarcation report Furthermore, it was specifically recorded in the demarcation report that the same was done in the presence of the petitioners but they that the same was done in the presence of the petitioners but they that the same was done in the presence of the petitioners but they had refused to sign the attendance sheet. had refused to sign the sheet. Since the petitioners were evidence to show either their ownership or not able to adduce any evidence to show either their ownership or not able to adduce any lawful possession over the land in dispute, the revision petition was lawful possession over the land in dispute lawful possession over the land in dispute dismissed by the Commissioner. dismissed by 4. he aforesaid impugned orders dated 23.02.2012, Challenging the aforesaid impugned orders dated 23.02.2012, Challenging t 10.09.2014 and 15.09.2023, the petitioners filed 10.09.2014 and 15.09.2023, the petitioners filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits notice was served upon the petitioners and therefore the impugned notice was served upon the petitioners and therefore the that no notice was served upon the petitioners and therefore the order dated February 23, 2012 passed by the AC order dated February 2 the AC was in breach of the and is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside on that ground alone principles of natural justice Furthermore, the demarcation was not done in the presence of the petitioners Furthermore, the demarcation was not done in the presence of t Furthermore, the demarcation was not done in the presence of t assumed that the petitioners were present at the time of the and even if it was assumed that the petitioners were present at the time of the and even if it was demarcation being conducted, still the petitioners admittedly being in demarcation being conducted, still the petitioners admittedly demarcation being conducted, still the petitioners admittedly could not be evicted without following the due occupation of disputed land could not be evicted without following the due occupation of procedure of law. The petitioners are only in oc procedure of law . The petitioners are only in occupation of approximately 1 kanal 15 marlas of land out of total land admeasuring 12 kanals 9 marlas and kanal 15 marlas of land out of total land admeasuring 12 kanals 9 marlas and kanal 15 marlas of land out of total land admeasuring 12 kanals 9 marlas and should be allowed to pay for the disputed land in question and their possession should be allowed to pay for the disputed land in question and their possession should be allowed to pay for the disputed land in question and their possession over the same should be regularized, in the interest of justice. over the same should be regularized, in the interest of justice. over the same should be regularized, in the interest of justice. 6. 7. to the respondents. Issue notice of motion to the respondents. Issue notice Mago, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of Mr. respondents No.1 to 4 and submits that the petitioners are in unauthorized respondents No.1 to 4 and submits that the petitioners are in unauthorized respondents No.1 to 4 and submits that the petitioners are in unauthorized Page 3 of 5 VANDANA 2025.09.17 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23798 of 2024 23798 of 2024 (O&M) possession of the Panchayat land and that the order dated possession of the Panchayat land and the order dated 23.02.2012 passed by the AC does not suffer from any infirmity under Section 7 of the 1961 Act by the AC does not suffer from any infirmity under Section 7 of the 1961 Act and the orders dated 10.09.2014 rders dated 10.09.2014 and 15.09.2023 and 15.09.2023 upholding the order of the AC have also been been rightly passed. The concurrent findings of the authorities belo The concurrent findings of the authorities below interfered with as the impugned orders are neither arbitrary nor should not be interfered with as the impugned orders are neither arbitrary nor interfered with as the impugned orders are neither arbitrary nor perverse. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. perused the material on record. 9. The petitioners, despite being present The petitioners despite being present during the demarcation in the year 2007, he attendance sheet nor challenged the report. neither signed the attendance sheet nor challenged the report. Reliance on the Resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated Reliance on the Resolution of the anchayat dated August 02, 2008 and the recommendation/no objection of the District Elementary Education the recommendation/no objection of the District Elementary Education the recommendation/no objection of the District Elementary Education Officer, Narnaul dated November 16, 2009 do not aid the case of the Officer, Narnaul dated November 16, 2009 do not a Officer, Narnaul dated November 16, 2009 do not a petitioners as both the recommendations were made prior to the petitioners as both the recommendations made prior to the decision of the Gram Panchayat to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the respondent-Gram Panchayat to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the Gram Panchayat to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 Act on October 18, 2010. Finally the said proceedings were decided vide 1961 Act on October 18, 2010. Finally the said proceedings were decided vide 1961 Act on October 18, 2010. Finally the said proceedings were decided vide gned order dated February 23, 2012 passed by the AC. the impugned order dated February 23, 2012 passed by the AC. gned order dated February 23, 2012 passed by the AC. 10. This Court cannot agree with the submissions made qua the non- This Court cannot agree with the submissions made This Court cannot agree with the submissions made service of notice upon the petitioners in course of service of notice the petitioners in course of Section 7 proceedings as the service of same in the impugned order. From the same has been clearly recorded in the impugned order. From the report produced before the Court of the AC, it appears that when the Village report produced before the Court of the AC, it appears that when the Village report produced before the Court of the AC, it appears that when the Village Chowkidar visited the house of the petitioners they were not present and Chowkidar visited the house of the petitioners they were not present and Chowkidar visited the house of the petitioners they were not present and therefore the summons were pasted on the wall of therefore the summons were pasted on the wall of their residence. Service upon the defendants/respondents by way of pasting of summons on a upon the defendants/respondents by way of pasting of summons on a upon the defendants/respondents by way of pasting of summons on a conspicuous part of the building when the defendants/respondents are not conspicuous part of the building when the defendants/respondents are not conspicuous part of the building when the defendants/respondents are not available to receive the same, is an accepted mode of service available to receive the same, is an mode of service, in law. 11. Therefore, this Court finds no force in the argument that the Therefore, this Court finds no force in Therefore, this Court finds no force in proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 Act were decided against the proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 Act were decided against the proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 Act were decided against the Page 4 of 5 VANDANA 2025.09.17 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23798 of 2024 23798 of 2024 (O&M) petitioners in breach of the principles of natural justice and without service of petitioners in breach of the principles of natural justice and without service of petitioners in breach of the principles of natural justice and without service of notice especially when n one of the petitioners could produce any evidence to especially when none of the petitioners could produce any evidence to that either they were the owners of the disputed property or they were in show that either they were the owners of the disputed property or they were in that either they were the owners of the disputed property or they were in thorized possession of the same as have been concurrently held by the authorized possession of the same as have been concurrently held by the thorized possession of the same as have been concurrently held by the authorities below. authorities below. 12. In the light of the discussion made In the light of the discussion made hereinabove, the petitioners cannot be permitted to encroach upon the Gram Panchayat cannot be permitted t o encroach upon the Gram Panchayat’s land which is reserved as a playground ‘ Gair Mumkin Khel Kood Maidan’. playground ‘Gair Mumkin Khel Kood Maidan’. 13. have been in unauthorized possession The petitioners knowingly have been in unauthorized possession The petitioners of the same at least since the time demarcation was done in 200 of the same at least since the time demarcation was done in 2007 and made no attempt to regularize their unauthorized possession by payment to the G.P. attempt to regularize their unauthorized possession by payment to the G.P attempt to regularize their unauthorized possession by payment to the G.P Therefore, after 18 years such a prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered, Therefore, after 18 years such a prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered, Therefore, after 18 years such a prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered, This Court finds no merit at all in the in the absence of any pleaded policy. This Court finds no merit at all in the in the absence of any etition and the same is hereby dismissed. On humanitarian grounds, present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. On humanitarian grounds, etition and the same is hereby dismissed. On humanitarian grounds, the petitioners allowed to vacate the suit land within two months from the are allowed to vacate the suit land within two months from the date of this order upon payment of fine as assessed by the learned AC vide date of this order upon payment of fine as assessed by the learned AC vide date of this order upon payment of fine as assessed by the learned AC vide order dated February 23, 2012. order dated February 23, 2012. 14.
Decision
With the directions aforesaid CWP-23798 of 2024 is disposed of. With the directions aforesaid CWP With the directions aforesaid CWP (DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE LAPITA BANERJI) (LAPITA BANERJI JUDGE SEPTEMBER 15, 2025 SEPTEMBER 15 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable: Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No VANDANA 2025.09.17 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 5