RSA No.3757 of 2010 (O&M) - 1 - ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3757 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:20.09.2010. Gram Panchayat, Deeg through its Sarpanch ...Appellant Versus Nand Lal ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Panwar, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The defendant is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which suit of the plaintiff has been decreed and the defendant has been restrained from demolishing the pucca house of the plaintiff or from creating any hindrance or obstacles in his peaceful possession over the property in dispute. The plaintiff has also been directed to approach the concerned authority, within a period of three months for payment of the amount of area which comes to the share of Gram Panchayat as per rules, failing which his suit would stand dismissed. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction alleging that he is a senior citizen and is handicapped on account of blindness. He claimed that he is owner in possession of a pucca house shown in red colour marked with letters ABCD in the site plan, situated within the abadi deh/lal dora of village Deeg, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, from the last 32 years and RSA No.3757 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - ***** have no other property except the said house to live in. In 2001, the defendant undertook the demarcation and found that part of the house of the plaintiff lies in the land of the defendant. He requested the defendant Gram Panchayat to sell the said portion to him at market/tentative price. On his request, the defendant Gram Panchayat passed a resolution dated 30.04.2001, wherein it was proposed that since house of the plaintiff is not creating any hindrance or obstacles in the passage or otherwise, therefore, the land, on which the plaintiff had already constructed a pucca house, be sold to him in terms of notification No.54936-954 dated 16.10.2000 by which the Government of Haryana had provided to sell the Gram Panchayat land at market/tentative rate to a person who is in illegal possession thereof and on which there exists his pucca house. However, despite the resolution and notification, the defendant had issued notice to the plaintiff on 01.04.2003 under Section 24(1) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 [for short “Act”] on account of village politics as he did not cast his vote in favour of the Panch who is now wanted to demolish his house. On notice, the defendant had alleged that the suit is not maintainable, the plaintiff should have availed the remedy available under Section 18 of the Act and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction under Section 13 of Punjab Village Common Lands and (Regulation) Act, 1961. On merits, it was alleged that the suit land is part of Khasra No.141 owned by the Gram Panchayat which is occupied to the extent of 25 Sq. Yards by the plaintiff, therefore, his possession is unauthorized. The resolution dated 30.04.2001 was denied and it was alleged that the Gram Panchayat is not bound by the government notification. On 16.05.2005, issues were framed. After availing oral as well as documentary evidence, the Courts below decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Learned Courts below found, from the pleadings and evidence of the parties, following established facts: - i) House of the plaintiff is situated within the abadi deh/lal dora of the village; ii) Khasra No.141 is owned by the Gram Panchayat; RSA No.3757 of 2010 (O&M) - 3 - ***** iii) As per demarcation report, plaintiff has admittedly encroached part of Khasra No.141; iv) The plaintiff has sought to purchase the encroached land from the Gram Panchayat at the market rate as per Government instructions; v) Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution recommending sale of the land to the plaintiff as it was not creating any hindrance and was not a part of passage; vi) Instructions dated 16.10.2000 issued by Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Haryana Government, Development and Panchayat Department are not disputed; vii) Instructions dated 16.10.2000 permit sale of land under pucca house to illegal occupants on certain conditions. Learned Courts below had also examined the instructions dated 16.10.2000, which are to the following effect: - i) Only uncultivable Panchayat land on which illegal kutcha/pucca houses are in existence can be allowed to be sold; ii) Land adjoining to suit land to the extent of 25% or maximum 200 Sq. Yards can only be sold; iii) Construction must be prior to 31.03.2000; iv) Resolution of Gram Panchayat in this regard is necessary; v) Sale of land should not cause hindrance in the pathway; vi) Market Rate would be decided by Deputy Commissioner after consultation with Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the defendant/appellant has argued that only on the basis of the instructions, the land cannot be sold to the plaintiff. As a matter of fact, the notification dated 16.10.2000 has been issued by the State of Haryana to mitigate the hardship of the villagers who have constructed their pucca houses in the abadi of the village and have RSA No.3757 of 2010 (O&M) - 4 - ***** inadvertently encroached upon some portion of the Panchayat land. If the Panchayat is satisfied that the said encroachment can be regularized as it falls within the parameters of the instructions dated 16.10.2000, the land could be sold. As a matter of fact, no substantial question of law has been raised in this appeal by learned counsel for the appellant which could attract the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and as such, I do not find any reason to take a view different from the view taken by the Courts below in upsetting their judgments. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed in limine. No costs. September 20, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE