L.P.A. No.689 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.689 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 07, 2011 Har Narain Singh .....APPELLANT Versus Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- Present: Mr.Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate, for the appellant. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 21.2.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.763 of 1987) filed by the appellant challenging the orders passed by the authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short `the Act'), has been dismissed. In the present case, Gram Panchayat, Jharsa filed an application under Section 7 of the Act before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade for eviction of the appellant and proforma respondents (hereinafter referred to as `the appellants') from 19 biswansi land comprising in Ahata No.777 (a public thorough fare), being in illegal and unauthorized possession. The L.P.A. No.689 of 2011 (O&M) -2- appellants contested the said application on the ground that the disputed land was part of Plot No.21, which was purchased by Smt. Chandro, mother of the appellants, and was not a part of Ahata No.777; and in a civil litigation they were found in possession of 506 Sq.Yard of land, which includes the disputed portion. Initially, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade rejected the contention of the appellants and passed the order of eviction against them. On appeal filed by the appellants, the Collector remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade to consider the issue after providing opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. After the remand, the Panchayat produced demarcation report as well as the other documents. On the other hand, the appellants produced copy of the sale deed and the judgment of the Civil Court, alleged to have been passed in their favour. After taking into consideration all these evidence and visiting the site, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade passed the order of eviction against the appellants while coming to the conclusion that Ahata No.777 is a thorough fare within abadi and is being used by the children for going to school. As per the demarcation report, the appellants were found in illegal occupation of the land measuring 152 Sq. Yards from Ahata No.777. Accordingly, the appellants were ordered to be evicted from that portion of the land. The order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade was upheld by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority. The learned single Judge while quoting the portion of the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grtade as well as the revisional authority, has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going L.P.A. No.689 of 2011 (O&M) -3- through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the orders passed by the authorities under the Act, we are of the opinion that in this appeal no interference is required. As per the finding recorded, the encroached portion is the part of Ahata No.777, which is a thorough fare being used by the inhabitants of the village. It is undisputed position that such land vests in the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat is entitled to evict any illegal occupant from such land. Learned counsel for the appellant only disputed the aforesaid finding of fact. According to him, the disputed land is not part of Ahata No.777. This Court cannot go into the finding of fact which is based upon the demarcation report. According to the demarcation report, the appellants are in possession of the land measuring 457 Sq. Yards, whereas their predecessors had purchased 305 Sq. Yards land vide sale deed dated 8.9.1966. Learned counsel argued that in a subsequent civil suit filed by their predecessors they were found in possession of 516 Sq. Yards of land which was actually sold to them by the vendor, but in the sale deed dated 8.9.1966 it was wrongly mentioned 305 Sq. Yard. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel that in the said suit, Gram Panchayat was not a party. Therefore, the finding recorded in the said suit will not bind the Gram Panchayat. The learned Single Judge, while taking into consideration this factor, has dismissed the writ petition while coming to the conclusion that in view of the demarcation report, the revenue authorities had rightly come to the conclusion that the appellants have encroached upon 152 Sq. Yards of land from Ahata No.777, which is a thorough fare and vests in the Gram Panchayat. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the order L.P.A. No.689 of 2011 (O&M) -4- passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the orders passed by the revenue authorities. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE April 07, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE