CWP No.12507 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12507 of 2010 Date of decision:09.11.2010 Gurmail Singh ..... Petitioner Versus The Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.T.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Anu Pal, AAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for respondent no.4. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders dated 30.10.2007, 06.05.2008 and 26.02.2010, passed by the Collector (Panchayat Land)-cum-D.D.P.O., Patiala, the Collector-cum-Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala (exercising the powers of Collector) and the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab (Exercising the powers of the Commissioner), SAS Nagar, Mohali, respectively. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application, filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been wrongly dismissed. The land in dispute does not belong to the Gram Panchayat as it forms a part of the petitioner's house constructed prior to 26.01.1950. It is pointed out by reference to the photographs and the site plan Annexures P-1 CWP No.12507 of 2010 -2- and P-2, that the land in dispute is a part of the petitioner's house and therefore belongs to the petitioner. It is further submitted that in view of the huge investments made by the petitioner, it would be unjust and inequitable to direct his ejectment. Counsel for the Gram Panchayat however, submits that the petitioner's house abuts the Gram Panchayat land. Taking advantage of the proximity of his house to the land in dispute, the petitioner has encroached upon land and raised unauthorised construction. The land in dispute bearing Khasra No.1348 was reserved for “latrines” a common purposes of the village and therefore, vests in the Gram Panchayat. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 of the Act for ejectment of the petitioner. The petition was allowed but instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Act, claiming that the land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The Collector, Patiala, dismissed the application on 06.05.2008 by holding that the land in dispute vests in the Gram Panchayat. An appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab (exercising the powers of the Commissioner) on 26.02.2010. The petitioner's plea that the land in dispute is a part of his house which was constructed before 26.01.1950, remains unsubstantiated for want of any revenue entry or other evidence to support this assertion. It appears that the petitioner's house abuts the land in dispute which in turn abuts the main road. The petitioner has encroached upon the land in dispute and constructed shops. The Collector and the Commissioner are concurrent in CWP No.12507 of 2010 -3- their opinion that the petitioner has no right, title or interest in the land in dispute and that the land vests in the Gram Panchayat. I find no reason whether on fact, in law or in equity to hold that these findings are in any manner illegal or suffer from any error of jurisdiction that would require interference. Before parting with the judgment, it would be appropriate to deal with the photographs and site plan appended with the petition. The photographs and the site plan appear to prima facie suggest that the land in dispute, is a part of the petitioner's house. A careful perusal however, leaves no manner of doubt that the petitioner seeks to misuse the proximity of his house to the land in dispute so as to perpetuate his unauthorised occupation of land which was reserved during consolidation proceedings for public use. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 09.11.2010 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE