Krishan Lal th Lal through his legal heirs and other others v. Ve State of Haryan aryana and others
Case Details
CWP No.35208 of 208 of 2025 IN THE H THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A JAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.3 NO.35208 OF 2025 (O&M) Krishan Lal th Lal through his legal heirs and other others ...Petitioners Versus Ve State of Haryan aryana and others ...Respondents The date w The date w The date w 1. 2. 3. 4. Whether date when the judgment is reserved ounced date when the judgment is pronounce aded date when the judgment is uploaded the judgment is ether only operative part of the ju is judgment jud ll the full nounced or whether nounced delay, if any of the pronounceme ment, and reasons thereof pronounce pronounce The delay judgment, 5. 27.11.2025 09.12.2025 09.12.2025 Full ncement of full Not applicable HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP CORAM : HO HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPIT HO DEEPAK SIBAL APITA BANERJI Present : Mr ocate, Mr. Rohiteshwar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. for Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana Mr aryana. LAPITA BANE ANERJI, J. The prayer in the present writ peti The rit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constituti nstitution of India, inter-alia, is for iss for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari f rari for quashing/setting-aside of t of the impugned order dated November 18/20 r 18/20, 2020 (Annexure P-3) passed b assed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, district K strict Kaithal, order dated March 29, 2 h 29, 2022 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Collector llector, district Kaithal-respondent No ent No.3 and the order dated June 12, 2025 (Anne (Annexure P-7) passed by the Divisi Divisional Commissioner, Karnal SHALINI BHATIA 2025.12.09 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 12 CWP No.35208 of 208 of 2025 Division, Karna Karnal- respondent No.2. The petiti petitioners have also prayed for stay of operatio eration of the impugned orders durin s during the pendency of the writ petition. 2. i)
Facts
The brief facts of the case are as fol The e as follows: In 2017, Satpal Singh-respondent In dent No.5 filed an application under Section 7 tion 7(2) of the Punjab Village Comm Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961 (hereinaft reinafter referred to as “the 1961 1961 Act”), for eviction of the petitioners from s from the land situate in Khasra No.1 a No.168, 680, 690, 694 in Khevat No.836, Khatau hatauni No.917 situated in village Sir ge Sirsal, Tehsil Pundri. ii) It was alleged in the eviction petiti It w n petition by respondent No.5 that due to the peti e petitioners’ illegal encroachment o ment of gair mumkin raasta the villagers were f were facing a lot of hardship while co hile commuting. Despite repeated requests the pet he petitioners did not remove the encr e encroachments and therefore, it became absolute bsolutely necessary for respondent No ent No.5 to file the petition under Section 7(2) of t (2) of the 1961 Act. iii) The petitioners filed a written stat The en statement to the petition under Section 7(2) of (2) of the 1961 Act wherein it was s was specifically pleaded that the petitioners had a s had a civil Court decree in their favo ir favour which held that it was the respondent No.5 t No.5 who was in illegal occupation ation of the Gram Panchayat land and not the peti e petitioners. iv) As a counter blast to the civil suit As il suit filed by the petitioners, the respondent No.5 t No.5 filed the instant application un ion under Section 7(2) of the 1961 Act which was d was decided against the petitioners b ners by the Assistant Collector on November 18/2 r 18/20, 2020. The appeal filed by the by the petitioners against the said SHALINI BHATIA 2025.12.09 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 12 CWP No.35208 of 208 of 2025 order was dism s dismissed by the Collector on Ma n March 29, 2022. The revision petition from th om the impugned orders dated Novem November 18/20, 2020 and March 29, 2022 was d was dismissed by the Divisional Com al Commissioner vide order dated 025. June 12, 2025. v) Under challenge in the present wr Un ent writ petition are the aforesaid orders dated No ted November 18/20, 2020, March 2 arch 29, 2022 and June 12, 2025 (hereinafter refe er referred to as “the impugned orders” orders”). IONS SUBMISSIONS 3.
Legal Reasoning
It is trite law that it is not necessa It i ecessary to strike down the action and refer the ma the matter to the authorities to take fre ake fresh decision after complying SHALINI BHATIA 2025.12.09 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 8 of 12 CWP No.35208 of 208 of 2025 with the proced procedural requirement, in cases whe s where non-grant of hearing has not caused any d any prejudice to the person against against whom the action is taken. Therefore, every , every violation of a facet of natural atural justice may not lead to the conclusion that n that the orders passed are null and ll and void. The validity of order has to be decide decided on the touchstone of 'prejud ejudice'. The view of this Court finds support in port in the judgment of Apex Cour Court in 'Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. Depu Deputy Commissioner of Central E al Excise, Gauhati and others" reported in (201 in (2015) 8 Supreme Court Cases 519 es 519. The relevant extract is as follows: “xxx “xx 35. 35. From the aforesaid discussio opportunity to provide hearing befo opp considered to be a basic requirem con Lat Later on, this principle was app authorities and other tribunals and aut laid down that even in the admin laid dec decision of the authority may resu hearing before taking a decision hea observed in A.K. Kraipak case tha obs nat natural justice is to prevent miscar see see how these rules should n administrative inquiries. In Manek adm also also the application of principl exte extended to the administrative a authorities. It is, thus, clear tha aut ser service of notice and giving of req required. In Maharashtra State F Board Mills, this aspect was e Boa manner: ma ussion, it becomes clear that the before making any decision was irement in the court proceeding. applied to other quasi-judicial and ultimately it is now clearly ministrative actions, where the result in civil consequences, a sion is necessary. It was, thus, e that if the purpose of rules of iscarriage of justice, one fails to d not be made available to aneka Gandhi v. Union of India nciple of natural justice was ve action of the State and its that before taking an action, of hearing to the noticee is te Financial Corpn. v. Suvarna as explained in the following "3. It has been contende counsel for the appellant justice were satisfied be Section 29, assuming that it it be seen whether it was natural justice cannot be rules are not embodied and case and from one fact-situa ended before us by the learned lant that principles of natural before taking action under at it was necessary to do so. Let was so. It is well settled that be placed in a straitjacket; its and they do vary from case to situation to another. All that has SHALINI BHATIA 2025.12.09 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 9 of 12 CWP No.35208 of 208 of 2025 adverse civil consequences are to be seen is that no adve re one is put on notice that the allowed to ensue before on low if he would not take care of consequence would follow hich the action as made known the lapse, because of which articular form of notice is the is contemplated. No partic law. All wi facts and will depend on demand of se." circumstances of the case." Xxx Xxx of the matter. While the law on 38. But that is not the end of th 38. partem has progressed in the the principle of audi alteram par the the same time, the courts have ma manner mentioned above, at the the principles of natural justice also repeatedly remarked that the also They cannot be applied in any are very flexible principles. They are ends upon the kind of functions stra straitjacket formula. It all depends o which a person is likely to be performed and to the extent to wh per tain exceptions to the aforesaid affected. For this reason, certain affe nder certain circumstances. For prin principles have been invoked under d that it would be sufficient to exa example, the courts have held tha esentation and oral hearing may allow a person to make a represen allo ses, though in some matters, not not be necessary in all cases, f the case, not only full-fledged dep depending upon the nature of the amination of witnesses is treated oral hearing but even cross-examin ora the principles of natural justice. as as a necessary concomitant of the elating to major punishment by Lik Likewise, in service matters relati e requirement is very strict and way of disciplinary action, the req way isaged under the statutory rules full full-fledged opportunity is envisag n those cases where there is an as as well. On the other hand, in tho n no such formal inquiry is held, admission of charge, even when no adm admission is upheld. It is for this the the punishment based on such adm s, even post-decisional hearing rea reason, in certain circumstances, e rther, the courts have held that is held to be permissible. Further is h rinciples of natural justice may und under certain circumstances princ even be excluded by reason of dive diverse factors like time, place, eve o on. the apprehended danger and so on. the 39. 9. We are not concerned with case as the issue relates to givi cas action. While emphasising that the act can cannot be applied in straitjack instances are given. We have hig inst basis of adhering to the principles bas gro grounded on the doctrine of proce outcome leading to general socia out there may be situations wherein the bec because the evidence against the utte utterly compelling it is felt that a f difference" meaning that a hear diff ultimate conclusion reached by t ulti ith these aspects in the present giving of notice before taking t the principles of natural justice tjacket formula, the aforesaid highlighted the jurisprudential ples of natural justice which are rocedural fairness, accuracy of social goals, etc. Nevertheless, rein for some reason-perhaps the individual is thought to be t a fair hearing "would make no hearing would not change the by the decision-maker-then no SHALINI BHATIA 2025.12.09 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 10 of 12 CWP No.35208 of 208 of 2025 legal duty to supply a hearing ari leg end endorsed by Lord Wilberforce in M who said that: who arises. Such an approach was in Malloch v. Aberdeen Corpn., "... A breach of procedur remedy in the courts, something of substance w failure. The court does not edure... cannot give [rise to] a ts, unless behind it there is ce which has been lost by the s not act in vain." Rel Relying on Cinnamond v. British Airports Auth Cin these comments, ts, Brandon L.J. opined Authority that: in "...no one can complain opportunity to make re opportunity would have av plain of not being given an e representations if such an e availed him nothing." In such situations, fair procedures In s since the "right" result can be secu sinc treatment to the individual. trea ures appear to serve no purpose secured without according such In this behalf, we need to 40. 40. whi which has been carved out to the courts. Even if it is found by the co cou of principles of natural justice, the of p not not be necessary to strike down the back to the authorities to take fre bac with the procedural requirement wit gra grant of hearing has not caused a aga against whom the action is taken. T a facet of natural justice may not a fa the the order passed is always null a ord order has to be decided on the tou ultimate test is always the same viz ulti test test of fair hearing. Xxx” Xxx to notice one other exception the aforesaid principle by the he court that there is a violation , the courts have held that it may the action and refer the matter fresh decision after complying ent in those cases where non- sed any prejudice to the person en. Therefore, every violation of not lead to the conclusion that ll and void. The validity of the e touchstone of "prejudice". The e viz. the test of prejudice or the [Emphasis Supplied] 18. In the light of the aforesaid discussi In t iscussion, this Court is of the view that the present resent petition is nothing but a frivo frivolous attempt to re-open the issues which ha ich have been settled by the revenu revenue authorities by impugned orders dated No ted November 18/20, 2020, March 29 rch 29, 2022 and June 12, 2025. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.12.09 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 11 of 12 CWP No.35208 of 208 of 2025 The aforesaid o said orders passed by the revenue au nue authorities are well reasoned, based on cogent cogent facts and material evidence inc nce including revenue records and merit no interfer nterference. 19.
Arguments
Learned counsel appearing on beha Lea ehalf of the petitioners submits that the impugn pugned orders suffer from complete plete non-application of mind as the same have b have been passed without taking into g into consideration the judgment dated February bruary 20, 2016 passed by the le the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaith Kaithal, in Civil Suit No.108 of 2 8 of 2015 titled ‘Krishan Lal v. Satpal and othe others’ and the judgment dated Sep ed September 26, 2017 passed by the learned Ad d Additional District Judge, Kaithal aithal in Civil Appeal No.30 of 2016 titled ‘Satp Satpal v.Krishan Lal and others’. 4. t is further submitted that no pro It i no proper opportunity of hearing was granted to t ed to the petitioners by the Assistant C stant Collector since the impugned order dated Nov d November 18/20, 2020 was passed assed when the entire country was affected by CO by COVID-19 pandemic. It is als is also vehemently argued that respondent No.5 t No.5 being an illegal encroacher hi cher himself could not maintain a petition under S nder Section 7(2) of the 1961 Act fo Act for eviction of the petitioners and it is only th nly the Gram Panchayat which could could have maintained a petition under Section 7 tion 7(2) of the 1961 Act. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.12.09 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 12 CWP No.35208 of 208 of 2025 5. Mr. Mago, learned DAG, Haryana Mr aryana, appearing on behalf of the State on advanc dvance notice, submits that the order orders of eviction passed against the petitioner ar ner are well founded and based on d on revenue records. Therefore, there is no arb arbitrariness or perversity in pa in passing of the orders under challenge. DISCUSSION A ON AND FINDINGS 6. This Court has heard learned co Thi ned counsel for the parties and perused the mat e material on record. 7. From a perusal of the judgment an Fro ent and decree dated February 20, 2016 passed b sed by the learned Civil Judge (Ju ge (Junior Division), Kaithal, it appears that a that a suit for permanent injunctio junction praying for restraining defendant no.1 no.1-Satpal (respondent No.5 in the in the present writ petition) from creating any ob ny obstruction in the construction wo ion work of naalies and streets on the land compr comprised in Khasra no.680, was f was filed. The grievance of the plaintiff/petition etitioner No.1 through his legal re gal representatives was that the respondent No.5 t No.5 was obstructing the construct nstruction of naalies by the Gram Panchayat on b t on both sides of the street in Khas Khasra No.680 from Mark-A to Mark-B thereby thereby restricting the discharge of ge of filthy water from gali in question where here the house of the plaintiff was sit as situated. 8. The learned Civil Judge decreed The ecreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff by res by restraining respondent No.5 in .5 in creating any hindrance in construction of on of the naali and street by the G the Gram Panchayat in Khasra No.680. Respon espondent No.5 filed an appeal aga al against the said judgment and decree dated Fe ted February 20, 2016 before Additio dditional District Judge, Kaithal. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.12.09 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 12 CWP No.35208 of 208 of 2025 The Appellate ellate Court dismissed the appeal fil eal filed by respondent No.5 on September 26, 2 r 26, 2017. It was held that as per jam er jamabandi, the Gram Panchayat was recorded as ded as owner of Khasra No.680 but si but since the plaintiff was shown in possession o sion of the said land and the dispute ispute related not with regard to ownership and o and only with regard to construction ction of the street and drainage on both sides of s of the street situated in Khasra hasra No.680, respondent No.5/ defendant in the in the suit had no right to stop the co the construction work even if the plaintiff/petition etitioner No.1 was in unauthorized po zed possession of Khasra No.680. It was further o rther observed by the learned ADJ, th DJ, that in the event the plaintiff was in unauth unauthorized possession of the Pa he Panchayat land, appropriate proceedings cou gs could be initiated against the plain e plaintiff to get the land of Gram Panchayat vacat ents. t vacated from illegal encroachments. 9. It is lost upon the mind of this Cou It i his Court as to how reliance-upon- the decree date e dated February 20, 2016, passed assed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and ju and judgment dated September 26, 2 r 26, 2017 of the Appellate Court comes to the aid the aid of the petitioners to demonstra onstrate that they are not in illegal possession of th n of the Panchayat land. 10. Under Section 7(1) of the 1961 Ac Un 61 Act (as applicable to Haryana), any person agg n aggrieved by illegal encroachment hment on the Panchayat land can file a petition u ition under the same for removal of i al of illegal encroachment on the Panchayat land. t land. Section 7(1) of the 1961 Act i Act is reproduced hereinafter for rence: ready reference: "7 "7 Power to put Panchayat in pos [(1 [(1)] An Assistant Collector o jurisdiction in the village may, juri application made to him by a Pan app possession of certain lands:- r of the first grade having ay, either suo moto or on an Panchayat or an inhabitant of SHALINI BHATIA 2025.12.09 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 12 CWP No.35208 of 208 of 2025 the village or the Block Developm the or or Social Education and Pancha Off Officer authorized by the Block D Officer, after making such summar Off and and in accordance with such proce ejec eject any person who is in wrongfu of the land or other immovable pro of t tha that village which vests or is deeme pan panchayat under this Act and put thereof and for so doing the Ass the gra grade may exercise the powers of a the the execution of a decree for po Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887: Pun lopment and Panchayat Officer nchayat Officer, or any other ck Development and Panchayat mary enquiry as he may deem fit rocedure as may be prescribed, ngful or unauthorised possession e property in the shamilat deh of eemed to have been vested in the put the panchayat in possession Assistant Collector of the first of a revenue court in relation to r possession of land under the Provided that if in any such title title is raised and proved prima fac that the question of title is rea tha Col Collector of the first grade shall re and and first decide the question of tit hereinafter." her such proceedings the question of a facie on the basis of documents really involved, the Assistant ll record a finding to that effect of title in the manner laid down [Emphasis Supplied] 11. Therefore, this Court cannot acce Th t accept the argument of learned counsel for the or the petitioners that respondent No.5 t No.5 had no locus standi to file an application ation under Section 7(2) of the 196 he 1961 Act for eviction of the petitioners from s from the Panchayat land. 12. Next it was vehemently argued on Nex ed on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned or ned order dated November 20, 2020 h 2020 has been passed by Assistant Collector 1st Gr Grade (AC) in breach of principl rinciples of natural justice as the hearing was con as concluded even though the parties parties were unrepresented due to COVID-19 pand 9 pandemic. The AC relied on the jam he jamabandi for the year 2010-11 to come to the o the finding that Khasra numbers in ers in dispute were owned by the 'Gram Panchay chayat deh'. Furthermore, as per s per demarcation report dated January 20, 201 0, 2016, the petitioners were in illeg n illegal possession of the land in the above menti mentioned khasra numbers. Therefore erefore, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade (AC) evi C) evicted the petitioners from the d the disputed land after imposing SHALINI BHATIA 2025.12.09 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 6 of 12 CWP No.35208 of 208 of 2025 Rs.10,000/- per per hectare per year as penalty fro lty from the date of filing of the application till t n till the date of removal of the illegal illegal encroachment. 13. Challenging the impugned order d Cha rder dated November 18/20, 2020 the petitioners f ners filed an appeal on February 22, ry 22, 2021 before the Collector, Kaithal. The Co he Collector heard both the parties arties before passing the detailed order dated Mar d March 29, 2022. It was argued on b d on behalf of the petitioners that Khasra No.690 o.690 was reserved for animal house house/warra during consolidation and not reserved eserved for construction of a street. T reet. The said land was bought by petitioner No.1 No.1 from allottees and the same did e did not fall within the definition of 'shamlat deh deh'. Similarly, the house built in K ilt in Khasra No.680 by petitioner No.1 was done a done after getting demarcation done o done on October 29, 2015 with the consent of the e f the existing Gram Panchayat and th and therefore, there was no illegal encroachment o ent on the same. Furthermore, there w there was no illegal encroachment in Khasra No.6 No.694 as the same is lying vacant vacant and not used for common purpose. The fe The fence/warra of petitioners No.2 No.2 and 3 is adjoining the land situated in Kha n Khasra No.168 and their house h ouse had been constructed after getting the dem e demarcation conducted with the h the consent of existing Gram Panchayat. Henc t. Hence, the question of illegal encroa encroachment by them did not and arise. could not arise. 14. After considering the arguments o Aft ents of the parties, the Collector came to the fin he finding that the land in Khasra No sra No.168 was reserved for gair mumkin raasta asta, as per the consolidation sch on scheme. The land in Khasra Nos.680 and 69 nd 690 was reserved for construction uction of streets. In jamabandi for the year 2010 -11, Gram ‘Panchayat deh' was was mentioned as owner in the SHALINI BHATIA 2025.12.09 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 7 of 12 CWP No.35208 of 208 of 2025 ownership colum column and therefore, the said land land being reserved for common purposes in the in the consolidation scheme, falls und ls under the definition of 'shamlat deh' and is veste s vested in the Gram Panchayat. There . Therefore, the Collector correctly held that the app the appeal was devoid of any merit and rit and the same was dismissed. 15. The learned Divisional Commissi The missioner, after hearing learned counsel for the r the parties and examining the reven revenue records on the file, came to the finding th ing that no error of any kind was com as committed by the Courts below in passing of th g of the impugned orders. As per th per the demarcation report dated January 22, 201 2, 2016, the petitioners were in illegal illegal possession of the Panchayat land which was h was reserved for public path and p and public use. It was also noted that several opp ral opportunities were given by the C the Collector while hearing the appeal to the p the petitioners for proving their leg ir legitimate possession over the land in dispute b spute but the same could not be proved proved by the petitioners. 16. Since the petitioners were adeq Sin adequately heard and several opportunities we ties were given to them to prove their e their ownership by the Collector, they cannot be p ot be permitted to argue that due to la e to lack of opportunity of hearing by the AC 1st Gr Grade all the impugned orders are ers are vitiated and liable to be set- aside. No preju prejudice could be shown on the pa the part of the petitioners by not being able to ap e to appear before the AC 1st Grade as rade as full opportunity of hearing was granted by ted by the Collector as well as the as the Divisional Commissioner specifically wh ly when the petitioners were unabl unable to bring on record any document contra contradicting the revenue records/con ds/consolidation scheme. 17.
Decision
Accordingly, the writ petition, bei Ac n, being CWP No.35208 of 2025 is dismissed. 20. Connected application(s), if any, s Con any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (DEEPAK SIB DGE JUDGE SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI) (LA JUDGE DECEMBER 0 Shalini ER 09, 2025 Whether speakin Whether reporta speaking/reasoned: reportable: Yes/No Ye Yes/No Ye SHALINI BHATIA 2025.12.09 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 12 of 12