Civil Writ Petition No. 783 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 783 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 09,2011 Jai Pal Singh & Others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM; HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Gaurav Dhir, D.A.G., Haryana Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5 Alok Singh, J (Oral) In brief, case of the petitioners, inter alia, is that they are in unauthorised possession of the Gram Panchayat land; Government of Haryana came out with a scheme (Annexure P/1) to sell the panchayat land, which is in possession of the encroachers as per the terms and conditions of the scheme (Annexure P/1); thereafter Gram Panchayat Civil Writ Petition No. 783 of 2010 2 passed a resolution in favour of the petitioners to sell the land and the matter was referred to the higher Authorities; on the reference made by the Gram Panchayat to sell the land in dispute in favour of the petitioners, Director, Panchayats, Haryana has approved the resolution of the Gram Panchayat vide order dated 23.9.1994; despite the order dated 23.9.1994, the Gram Panchayat is not alienating the property in favour of the petitioners moreover, the petition filed under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act against the petitioners was dismissed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Asandh, District Karnal, on 6.11.2007 and the appeal filed against the order of the Assistant Collector dated 6.11.2007 was also dismissed by the Collector, Karnal vide order dated 5.11.2009 after having observed that Director, Panchayats vide order dated 23.9.1994 (Annexure P/2) had directed to sell the land in question in open auction and never approved any sale in favour of the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the Gram Panchayat's resolution and the policy of the Government, alienation deed is not being executed in favour of the petitioners, therefore, respondents be directed not to make interference in the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute. Ms.Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel appearing for Gram Panchayat states that Gram Panchayat has no objection if the petition is allowed. However, Mr.Gaurav Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has vehemently argued that Annexure P/2 dated 23.9.1994 no where says Civil Writ Petition No. 783 of 2010 3 that land in question shall be alienated in favour of the petitioners, rather careful reading of Annexure P/2 would reveal that Director, Panchayats, has directed to sell the land in open auction. Therefore, unless and until open auction is held and the petitioners come out as the higher bidder, no alienation can be made in favour of the petitioners. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondent No.5 (Gram Panchayat) are not able to produce on record any document to show that any open auction was ever held as per Annexure P/2. In the absence of any open auction as directed by the Director, Panchayats vide order dated 23.9.1994, petitioners have absolutely no right to seek alienation of the land in dispute in their favour. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that since petition filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act has been dismissed by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 6.11.2007 which was upheld by the Learned Collector vide order dated 5.11.2009, therefore, now Gram Panchayat can not evict the petitioners saying no alienation was made in favour of the petitioner. This Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is akin to Revisional power can see as to whether any order passed by any Court, Tribunal or quasi judicial Authority is without jurisdiction or illegal or out come of wrong exercise of jurisdiction even suo motu. Since, petitioners are Civil Writ Petition No. 783 of 2010 4 banking upon the orders passed by Learned Assistant Collector and Collector I proceed to see the legality and validity of the orders. Perusal of orders, Annexures P-3 and P-6 would reveal that eviction petition under Section 7 was dismissed on the ground that Director, Panchayats vide order dated 23.9.1994 (Annexure P/2) has directed to sell the property in open auction. In the opinion of this Court, Assistant Collector and Learned Collector failed to observe that direction was for selling the property in open auction and petitioners have not participated in open auction and their bid was not accepted. Annexure P-2 no where directs to alienate the property in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, dismissal of eviction petition is totally unwarranted, ipso facto illegal. Petitioners can not take protection of illegal orders. While exercising my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hold that orders Annexures P-3 and P-6 can not be sustained in the eyes of law. Petitioners have no legal right to remain in unauthorised possession of Panchayat land. The petition is devoid of any merit and hence the same is hereby dismissed. It is made clear that Gram Panchayat shall be at liberty to evict the petitioner in accordance with law. Eviction Case No.41/VCL Act instituted on 1.1.2003 is remanded to Assistant Collector for fresh decision. Parties shall appear before the Assistant Collector on 5.9.2011. (Alok Singh) August 09, 2011 Judge BB