Jagdish Chand hander through his LR v. Ve State of Haryan aryana and others
Case Details
CWP No.27805 of 805 of 2025 (O&M) IN THE H THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A JAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO. RESERVED ON: S DATE OF DECISION: NO.27805 OF 2025 (O&M) ON: SEPTEMBER 17, 2025 ION: SEPTEMBER 26, 2025 Jagdish Chand hander through his LR ...Petitioner Versus Ve State of Haryan aryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPIT HO APITA BANERJI Mr. Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate Present : Mr Mr. Ashish Sharma, Advocate, Mr For the petitioner. For ocate with , Haryana and Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG, Harya Mr aryana. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana Mr LAPITA BANE ANERJI, J. Prayer in the present writ petition f Pra tition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution titution of India is for issuance of ce of a writ in the nature of certiorari for q for quashing the impugned order order dated January 06, 1998 (Annexure P-1) 1) passed by the Assistant Collect ollector 1st Grade-cum-District Revenue Office Officer, Bhiwani (for short ‘AC’), w , whereby the petitioner has been directed t cted to remove illegal encroachmen chment from panchayat land. Orders dated M ated March 28, 1999/November 14, r 14, 2000 passed by District Collector (DC) (DC) Bhiwani, District Bhiwani-respo respondent No.4, whereby the petitioner’s statu ’s statutory appeal had been dismissed issed and the order dated April 12, 2007 (Anne Annexure P-2) whereby the revision vision petition of the petitioner SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.26 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 10 CWP No.27805 of 805 of 2025 (O&M) has been dismis dismissed by the Commissioner, Hisa , Hisar Division, Hisar are also llenge. under challenge 2. i)
Legal Reasoning
The facts of the case in brief are as The are as follows: The private respondent No.7 file The .7 filed an application under Section 7(2) of (2) of the Punjab Village Common L mon Land and Regulation Act, 1961 (hereinaft reinafter referred to as “the 1961 A 961 Act”), for eviction of the petitioner from from “Shamlat land” comprised in sed in Khasra No.156 as per Jamabandi for th i for the year 1992-93, situated in villa village Mundal Kalan, Tehsil Bawanikheda, eda, District Bhiwani. ii) The case of respondent No.7 was th The was that the father of petitioner had illegally enc lly encroached upon the land belongin longing to Gram Panchayat. An opportunity of ty of hearing to the effected parties parties was given by the AC. During the proc e process of hearing, a request was ma as made from both the sides to decide the case e case on the basis of spot inspection. ection. It was found by the AC, on the basis o asis of the spot inspection report report that the house of the petitioner/his fa /his father was very old but between ween the gate of the house and the street, a mud , a mud platform (Chabutra) had been been constructed admeasuring 25’x19’. iii) The petitioner’s father was found t The ound to be in illegal occupation of the said platf d platform (Chabutra) by encroaching aching upon the panchayat land and the same w ame was ordered to be removed by by the AC. The petitioner’s father filed an ed an appeal before the Collector, B ctor, Bhiwani. Vide impugned order dated No November 14, 2000 (copy not a not annexed), the appeal was dismissed. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.26 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 10 CWP No.27805 of 805 of 2025 (O&M) iv) Cha Challenging the aforesaid order of der of the Collector, a revision petition was file as filed by the petitioner’s father. v) The Commissioner recorded that t The that the AC, after visiting the spot passed the ed the order dated January 06, 199 , 1998, whereby the platform (Chabutra) was ) was directed to be removed. From From the AC order, the private respondent prefe t preferred an appeal before the Court Court of Collector in which the petitioner’s fath ’s father was represented though h ugh his advocate. It was the contention of th n of the private respondent that the p t the petitioner’s father was in illegal possessio ssession of 19 marlas land and not on not only of the afore mentioned Chabutra. vi) March 26, 1999 was the date fixe Ma te fixed for arguments but the petitioner’s fath ’s father was neither present person ersonally nor was represented through his adv is advocate on the said date. Therefo herefore, an ex-parte order was passed by the C the Collector, evicting the petitioner’ ioner’s father from the disputed land admeasurin asuring 19 marlas. vii) The petitioner’s father filed an ap The an application for recalling of the order dated dated March 26, 1999 before the he Collector and the said application was n was rejected vide an order dated dated March 30, 1999 after hearing both the oth the parties the impugned order da rder dated March 26, 1999 was passed after con ter considering the case on merits. It w its. It was held by the Collector that Khasra No. ra No. 158 had been marked in the pre the presence of the parties and it was found that d that the owner of the disputed ted 19 marls land was Gram Panchayat, Mu t, Mundal Kalan as per Jamabandi abandi for the year 1992-93. Therefore, the the Commissioner after discussing ussing the facts of the case in SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.26 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 10 CWP No.27805 of 805 of 2025 (O&M) detail found th nd that there was no infirmity in ty in the order passed by the Collector. Acco . Accordingly, the Commissioner dism r dismissed the revision petition vide impugned gned order dated April 12, 2007. viii) An execution petition was move An moved by private respondent No.7 on May 1 ay 10, 1999. The objection petition w tition was filed by the petitioner in 2025 to the ex the execution petition filed by respon respondent No.7 in 1999. ix) The said objection petition was dis The as dismissed and the execution application was n was allowed by the AC vide an an order dated September 12, 2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petition Lea etitioner submits that a fresh demarcation sh on should have been called for by by the AC the execution application. The n. The platform (Chabutra) that was d was directed to be removed by the AC vide ord de order dated January 06, 1998 was c was complied with. Therefore, the appeal pre al preferred by the private respond espondent before the learned Collector was was erroneously allowed and that t that too when the petitioner’s predecessor-in in-interest was not represented. Fu ted. Furthermore, the Collector erred in not reca ot recalling the ex-parte order passed assed by it. The Commissioner also erred in n d in not setting aside the impugne pugned orders passed by the Collector. Witho ithout an opportunity of being hea ng heard, the petitioner’s father was illegally e ally evicted from 19 marlas of l of land in Khasra No.156. Therefore, the i , the impugned orders dated March arch 26, 1999 and March 30, 1999 passed by sed by the Collector and the impugn mpugned order dated April 12, 2007 passed by sed by the Commissioner should be uld be quashed/set-aside. As a SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.26 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 10 CWP No.27805 of 805 of 2025 (O&M) natural corollary ary, the impugned order dated Se ted September 12, 2025 passed by the AC in the in the execution petition should also b also be set-aside. 4. In the alternative, the learned c In ned counsel submits that the petitioner’s pray ’s prayer for regularisation of the ill the illegal encroachment upon payment of the of the prescribed fee, should be c be considered by the Gram Panchayat, as p , as per Rule 12 (4) of the Punjab jab Village Common Land (Regulation) Ru ) Rules, 1964 (as applicable to Hary o Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as “the 1964 1964 Rules”). 5.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Mittal, learned State counsel a Mr nsel appears on advance notice and represents sents respondents No.1 to 5. He sub e submits that the petitioner’s father was prese s present during the spot inspection d ction done by the AC and also during the dema e demarcation that was conducted prio prior to the orders passed by the Collector in ctor in the year 1999. Since the dem e demarcation was done in the presence of the of the petitioner’s father, there cann e cannot be any question of a further demarca emarcation being conducted. Theref herefore, the present petition deserves to be d to be dismissed in limine. 6. This Court has heard learned cou Thi ed counsel for the parties and perused the mat e material on record. 7. It transpires from the perusal of the It t l of the record that there was no challenge to the to the order dated April 12, 2007 pas 07 passed by the Commissioner in the revision ision and the same has attained final d finality. Furthermore, despite the fact that the hat the execution petition was filed b filed by the private respondent No.7 in the ye the year 1999, neither the petitioner itioner nor his predecessor-in- interest took any ok any steps to file any objection peti n petition to the same till 2025. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.26 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 10 CWP No.27805 of 805 of 2025 (O&M) It is only on Sep on September 09, 2025, the petitioner tioner chose to file the objection petition to the e the execution application filed by th by the private respondent and the same was fin was finally decided on September 12, 2 er 12, 2025 by the AC. 8. Without challenging the order da Wi der dated April 12, 2007 and enjoying the pro the property belonging to the Gram Pa ram Panchayat for more than 18 years, the petit e petitioner has now approached th ed this Court to unsettle the position that wa hat was arrived at in 2007 by seeking eking for a fresh demarcation to be conducted. N cted. Nothing has been brought on ht on record to show that the demarcation tha on that was conducted and the report t eport that was submitted before the learned Coll d Collector was challenged by the peti he petitioner or his predecessor- in-interest. Ther t. Therefore, this Court has no hesitati esitation to hold that the orders dated March 28 rch 28, 1999 and November 14, 2000 , 2000 passed by the Collector and the order dated April 12, 2007 passed by ed by the Commissioner do not warrant any inte ny interference especially when they they have also attained finality. 9. Furthermore, it is not lost upon th Fur the mind of this Court that an execution pe ion petition has been kept pending fo ding for disposal for almost 26 years from 199 m 1999 till 2025. It is also surprisin rprising to note that the Gram Panchayat also t also took no steps at all to evict the ct the petitioner/predecessor-in- interest from its om its land. It gives a distinct impres impression on the mind of this Court that due t due to some unholy nexus, the peti e petitioner/his predecessor-in- interest could co ould continue in illegal possession of ion of the panchayat land when time and again again, it has been reiterated by the Ap Apex Court that the timeline stipulated for d for disposal of the execution peti petitions should be strictly adhered to. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.26 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 6 of 10 CWP No.27805 of 805 of 2025 (O&M) 10. A beneficial reference may be mad A b be made to the directions given by the Apex Co pex Court in Rahul S.Shah v. Jinen inendra Kumar Gandhi and others, reported ported in (2021) 6 SCC 418. The relev e relevant extract of the same is reproduced here d hereunder: 42. “42 All courts dealing w proceedings shall mandatorily foll pro directions: dire g with suits and execution follow the below mentioned In suits relating to de 42.1 42. cou court must examine the parties to t rela relation to third-party interest a power under Order 11 Rule 14 a pow and and produce documents, upon oath of t of the parties including declaration interest in such properties. inte to delivery of possession, the to the suit under Order 10 in st and further exercise the 14 asking parties to disclose oath, which are in possession ation pertaining to third-party 42. In appropriate cases, 42.2 not in dispute and not a question not before the court, the court may a bef assess the accurate description and ass ses, where the possession is stion of fact for adjudication ay appoint Commissioner to and status of the property. After examination of p 42.3 42. pro production of documents under com commission report, the Court mu proper parties to the suit, so as pro pro proceedings and also make such j in the same suit. in t of parties under Order X or der Order XI or receipt of t must add all necessary or as to avoid multiplicity of ch joinder of cause of action 42. Under Order XL Ru 42.4 Receiver can be appointed to m Rec in question as custo property pro adjudication of the matter. adj Rule 1 of CPC, a Court o monitor the status of the for proper custodia legis The Court must, bef 42.5 42. pertaining to delivery of possession per the the decree is unambiguous so as des description of the property but al status of the property. stat , before passing the decree, ssion of a property ensure that as to not only contain clear ut also having regard to the 42. In a money suit, th 42.6 resort to Order 21 Rule 11, ensurin res decree for payment of money on or dec t, the Court must invariably suring immediate execution of n oral application. In a suit for paym 42.7 42. settlement of issues, the defenda sett payment of money, before endant may be required to SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.26 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 7 of 10 CWP No.27805 of 805 of 2025 (O&M) disclose his assets on oath, to the disc ma made liable in a suit. The Court ma app appropriate cases during the pende under Section 151 CPC, deman und satisfaction of any decree. sati o the extent that he is being t may further, at any stage, in endency of suit, using powers to ensure mand security The Court exercising e 42.8 42. und under Section 47 or under Order 2 not notice on an application of third- mechanical manner. Further, the C mec ent entertaining any such application( con considered by the Court while adju raises any such issue which oth rais rais raised and determined during ad diligence was exercised by the appl dili jurisdiction er 21 of CPC, must not issue ird-party claiming rights in a the Court should refrain from tion(s) that has already been adjudicating the suit or which otherwise could have been g adjudication of suit if due applicant. The Court should a 42.9 42. dur during the execution proceedings rare cases where the question of f rar to any other e by resorting by app appointment of Commissioner o materials including photographs or ma ld allow taking of evidence ings only in exceptional and of fact could not be decided like r expeditious method r or calling for electronic hs or video with affidavits. 42. The Court must in ap 42.10 find finds the objection or resistance or mala fide, resort to Sub-rule (2) of ma wel well as grant compensatory co Section 35A. Sec in appropriate cases where it ce or claim to be frivolous or 2) of Rule 98 of Order XXI as costs in accordance with 42. Under section 60 of C 42.11 of t of the judgment- debtor or by anoth or on his behalf” should be read lib or o oth other person from whom he may h share, profit or property. sha of CPC the term “…in name nother person in trust for him d liberally to incorporate any ay have the ability to derive The Executing Cou 42.12 42. Exe Execution Proceedings within six filin filing, which may be extended only writing for such delay. wri Court must dispose of the six months from the date of only by recording reasons in 42. The Executing Court 42.13 fact that it is not possible to exe fac pol police assistance, direct the conc pro provide police assistance to such o towards execution of the decree. F tow aga against the public servant while bro brought to the knowledge of the dealt stringently in accordance with dea ourt may on satisfaction of the execute the decree without concerned Police Station to ch officials who are working e. Further, in case an offence ile discharging his duties is the Court, the same must be with law. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.26 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 8 of 10 CWP No.27805 of 805 of 2025 (O&M) The Judicial Academi 42.14 42. trainin and and ensure continuous med to the Court person mediums warrants, carrying out attachment war offi official duties for executing orders Courts.” Cou demies must prepare manuals through appropriate ining rsonnel/staff executing the ment and sale and any other rders issued by the Executing 11. A reference is also made to the re A r the recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court Court in Civil Appeal No.3640 of 2025 f 2025 dated March 06, 2025 in Periyammal (d al (dead) through LRS and others rs v. V. Rajamani and others, wherein the H the High Courts across the country untry were directed to call for necessary inform information from their respective distr e district judiciary with regard to pendency of the the execution petitions. Relevant ex ant extract thereof is reproduced hereinafter:- “75 “75. In view of the aforesaid, we across the country to call for the ne acr the their respective district judiciary a exe execution petitions. Once the data the High Courts, the High Courts s the issu issue an administrative order or res respective district judiciary to en petitions pending in various cour pet disposed of within a period of dis oth the concerned presi otherwise answerable to the High Court on ans Once the entire data along with th On dis disposal thereafter, is collected by sam same shall be forwarded to the Re individual reports.” ind , we direct all the High Courts he necessary information from ry as regards pendency of the data is collected by each of rts shall thereafter proceed to r or circular, directing their to ensure that the execution courts shall be decided and of six months without fail residing officer would be rt on its administrative side. th the figures of pendency and d by all the High Courts, the e Registry of this Court with 12. In the light of the aforesaid disc In discussion and law governing the field, this C this Court finds no infirmity in th in the impugned order dated September 12, 2 r 12, 2025 passed by the AC. 13. Since the petitioner has not made a Sin ade an application to the Gram Panchayat conc t concerned in terms of Rule 12 (4 12 (4) of the 1964 Rules, the SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.26 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 9 of 10 CWP No.27805 of 805 of 2025 (O&M) alternative pray e prayer made by the petitioner cann r cannot be considered by this Court. 14. In the afore noted circumstances, In ances, the instant writ petition being CWP No. P No.27805 of 2025 Jagdish Chande ander through his LR v. State of Haryana and and others, is dismissed with costs costs assessed at Rs.10,000/- to be deposited wi ted with the Poor Patient Welfare Fu are Fund, PGIMER, Sector-12, Chandigarh for rh for unbecoming conduct of stallin stalling the execution petition before the Exec e Executing Court for more than 26 26 years from the date of dismissal of the of the revision petition. 15. Connected application(s), if any, sh Con
Decision
any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (DEEPAK SIB DGE JUDGE SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI) (LA JUDGE SEPTEMBER Shalini BER 26, 2025 Whether speakin Whether reporta speaking/reasoned: reportable: Yes/No Yes/No SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.26 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 10 of 10