IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 19651 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 19.10.2011 Prem Chand and others .... PETITIONERS Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 23.2.2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Guhla, whereby on an application file by respondents No.6 and 7 under Section 7 (2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (As Applicable to Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), the petitioners were ordered to be evicted from 105 x 50 feet land, situated in village Papsar, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, falling in Khasra No. 32/17, measuring 6 Kanals 11 Marlas, which has been described in the revenue record as Gair Mumkin Johar (pond) and Dada Khera, used for common purposes of the village; as well as the orders dated 14.6.2011 and 23.8.2011 CWP No. 19651 of 2011 -2- (Annexures P-2 and P-4), passed by the Collector, Kaithal and the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt, respectively, whereby the appeal and revision filed by the petitioners against the said order have been dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned orders. It is not disputed that as per the jamabandi for the year 2003-04, rectangle No. 32, killa No. 17 (6-11) is recorded as Gair Mumkin Jhor owned by the Gram Panchayat. The said killa number is adjacent to the village abadi and in some portion of this land, Dada Khera is existing, which is daily worshiped by the villagers. When the petitioners tried to encroach upon some area of the said killa number by raising construction, the eviction application was filed against them. In the said application, an order of status quo was passed and the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Siwan was directed to conduct spot inspection and submit his report. The said officer submitted his report that house of the petitioner is existing away from killa No. 32/17. However, it was further reported that the unauthorised possession of the petitioners can be ascertained by making demarcation of the disputed killa number by the revenue department. After the said report, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade directed the Tehsildar, Guhla to conduct demarcation of the disputed killa number in the presence of both the parties and submit his report. After demarcating the disputed site in the presence of both the parties, Tehsildar, Guhla submitted the CWP No. 19651 of 2011 -3- demarcation report, in which he found that the petitioners have encroached upon 105 x 50 feet area of the aforesaid killa number, which was owned by the Gram Panchayat. While relying upon the said demarcation report, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, ordered the eviction of the petitioners from 105 x 50 feet of land, falling in Khasra No. 32/17(6-11), and a penalty of ` 10,000/- per hectare per year from the year 2003-04 was imposed upon them. The said order was upheld in appeal and revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that on part of the disputed land, house of the petitioners is existing, which is 40 years old and in execution of the impugned order, their house will be demolished. He argued that whatsoever encroachment was made, it was made 40 years ago, therefore, after such a long period of the existence of the house, the petitioners cannot be evicted from the said portion of the land. This contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. Initially, when the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Siwan, was directed to conduct spot inspection and submit report. In his report, the said officer categorically reported that the old house of the petitioners is far away from killa No. 32/17. It appears that when the petitioners started raising construction on the encroached portion of the disputed land, the ejectment application was filed by respondents No.6 and 7 and on demarcation conducted in the presence of the petitioners, the aforesaid encroachment was found by Tehsildar, Guhla. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any illegality in the demarcation report, which was made by the senior CWP No. 19651 of 2011 -4- revenue officer, as per the directions of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, and according to the said report, encroachment on 105 x 50 feet area made by the petitioners was established. While relying upon the said report, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade has passed the order of eviction, which has been upheld by the Collector and the Commissioner. In the last, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the encroached portion of the land, on which house of the petitioners is existing, may be permitted to be purchased by the petitioners at Collector rate. In our opinion, this contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted by this Court, because the encroached portion is part of the common purpose land of the village. If the petitioners have any such right under any statute, they may be at liberty to avail that right. However, as far as the impugned orders are concerned, we do not find any illegality in the same. No merits. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 19, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE