IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 17464 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 19.09.2011 Wazir Singh .... PETITIONER Versus The Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Petitioner Wazir Singh has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 31.7.2008 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sonepat (respondent No.3), whereby on an application filed by Gram Panchayat, Malha Majra, Tehsil and District Sonepat (respondent No.4) under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute; as well as the orders dated 26.11.2008 and 6.4.2010 (Annexures P-12 and P-14), passed by the Collector, Sonepat (respondent No.2) and the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak (respondent No.1), CWP No. 17464 of 2011 -2- respectively, whereby the appeal and the revision petition, filed by the petitioner, have been dismissed, affirming the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sonepat. The dispute in this case is regarding 2000 square yards vacant plot, situated within the Abadi Deh, which has been illegally occupied by the petitioner and his brothers. As per respondent No.4 – Gram Panchayat, the said plot was used by the residents of the village for common purposes and according to Section 2 (g) (4a) of the Act, the same vests in the Gram Panchayat. When the Gram Panchayat asked the petitioner to remove his unauthorised possession over the plot in dispute, he filed a civil suit, which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 13.4.2006, whereby the Gram Panchayat was restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the plot in dispute, except in due course of law. After the decision of the civil court, respondent No.4 – Gram Panchayat filed application under Section 7 of the Act. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, after taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties and the spot inspection made by him on 7.4.2008, came to the conclusion that the said plot is lying vacant and it is being used for common purposes of the village, but by putting manure pit on some part of the land, using the same for bitora i.e. cow dung cake and by planting small Kikkar trees, the petitioner has illegally occupied the said plot, and constructed a boundary thereon. It was further found that earlier also, the petitioner and his brother made permanent encroachment over the plot in dispute, which CWP No. 17464 of 2011 -3- was got removed by the Gram Panchayat and now, they have again made encroachment in order to illegally grab the vacant plot, which is being used by the inhabitants of the village for the common purposes. The said finding of fact has been was affirmed by the appellate as well as the revisional authorities. Aggrieved against the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to Section 2 (g) (1) of the Act, argued that the land within the abadi does not fall under the definition of “shamilat deh”. He further argued that the plot in dispute is not being used for any common purpose of the village, such as streets, lanes, wells etc., situated within the abadi area, therefore, such land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. He argued that clause (4a) of Section 2 (g) of the Act is not applicable in the present case, because the plot in dispute is not vacant and is under the occupation of the petitioner and his brothers. After hearing the learned counsel, and in view of the findings recorded by the authorities below, this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Section 2 (g) (4a) of the Act provides that `any vacant land situate in abadi deh or gorah deh not owned by any person' is shamilat deh and under Section 4 of the Act, such land vests in the Gram Panchayat. As per the inspection report of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and the findings recorded by the authorities under the Act, the land in dispute is a vacant plot, which is not owned by any one, and the same is CWP No. 17464 of 2011 -4- being used for common purposes of the village. It is the case of the petitioner himself that by putting manure pit on some part of the land, using the same for bitora i.e. cow dung cake and by planting small Kikkar trees, he has occupied the said land, and constructed boundary wall thereon. Such kind of occupation of the vacant land by the petitioner does not confer upon him any title over the land. Such occupation of the vacant land also does not divest the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. By putting these articles and raising boundary wall around the disputed land, the petitioner cannot change the nature of the land. Such encroachment is unauthorised and illegal, which is required to be removed on the application of the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Act. Since the plot in question was a vacant land within the abadi, not owned by any person, and is being used for common purposes of the inhabitants of the village, in view of Section 2 (g) (4a) and Section 4 of the Act, the same vests in the Gram Panchayat. The contention of the petitioner that the Gram Panchayat is not owner of the land in dispute is devoid of any merit. It is not the case that possession of the petitioner and his brothers is permissive. Merely because a person is using such land, which vests in the Gram Panchayat, and has raised boundary wall around the same, he cannot become owner of the same. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to challenge the finding of fact on the ground that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade has only mentioned that he inspected the spot, but he did not prepare the Inspection Note. We are of the opinion that on such flimsy CWP No. 17464 of 2011 -5- ground, the finding of fact recorded by the authorities below cannot be set aside. There is no evidence led by the petitioner and his brothers that their possession on the disputed land was legal and permissive. Thus, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders, passed by the authorities under the Act. No merits. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE September 19, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) ndj JUDGE