IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 20310 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 14.11.2011 Partap Chand .... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The instant writ petition has been filed by petitioner Partap Chand against the order dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Class, Rewari, whereby on the application filed by Gram Panchayat, Nandha, Tehsil and District Rewari (respondent No.4 herein), he has been ordered to be ejected from the land in question, shown as ABCD in the site plan, which is part of Khasra Number 62 belonging to the Gram Panchayat being Abadi; as well as the order dated 29.3.2011 (Annexure P-6), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been dismissed by the Collector, Rewari. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone CWP No. 20310 of 2011 -2- through the impugned order. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of the demarcation report submitted by the Local Commissioner, according to which the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of the land in question. During the course of arguments, it has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that on an earlier application, filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (As Applicable to Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), father of the petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the land in question and in view of the said order, possession of the land was taken by the Gram Panchayat on 23.11.2005. It is also not disputed that thereafter, the petitioner by claiming possession on the said land filed a civil suit for restraining the Gram Panchayat from interfering in his possession over the disputed land. In the said suit, an application for injunction was also filed, which was dismissed and the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed. In the Massavi, produced by the Gram Panchayat, khasra No. 62 has been shown to be owned by the Gram Panchayat being abadi deh. As per Section 2 (g) (4a) of the Act, vacant land situate in abadi deh, which is not owned by any person, is shamilat deh. Undisputedly, the petitioner did not lead any evidence to show that he was owner of the land in question. The ejectment application filed against his father was allowed and possession of the land in question was taken by the Gram Panchayat. In view of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any illegality or CWP No. 20310 of 2011 -3- infirmity in the orders, passed by both the authorities below against the petitioner. In our opinion, on one pretext or the other, earlier the father of the petitioner and now the petitioner is dragging the Gram Panchayat in litigation. When we were inclined to dismiss this petition with costs, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, has given an undertaking on behalf of the petitioner that he will vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the land in dispute to the Gram Panchayat, within a period of one month from today. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 14, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE