L.P.A. No.991 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.991 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 Ram Kumar and others .....APPELLANTS Versus State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR --- Present: Mr. S.N. Gaur, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl. A.G.,Haryana. Mr. Bahadur Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Mr. A.K. Singh Goyat, Advocate, for respondent No.8. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.3.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.17788 of 2009) filed by the appellants for quashing the orders dated 12.7.2007 (Annexure P-7), 1.2.2008 (Annexure P-8), 28.1.2009 (Annexure P-9) and 4.6.2009 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Collector, Commissioner and Financial L.P.A. No.991 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Commissioner, respectively, has been dismissed. In this case, the dispute is about a piece of land measuring 105 feet x 62 feet situated within the abadi deh, which is in the shape of a chowk and was to be used by the inhabitants of the village for common purposes. On an application filed by respondents No.6 and 7 under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), the appellants have been ordered to be ejected from the disputed land by the Assistant Collector Ist Class after coming to the conclusion that the disputed land is a public chowk and was being used by the villagers for common purposes. The said decision was given on the basis of spot inspection report and the report of the Field Kanungo which indicate that the appellants' possession on the disputed chowk, which was meant for common purposes, is unauthorized and illegal. The said finding of fact was affirmed by the Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the authorities under the Act, which has not been interfered by the learned Single Judge, is not correct. According to him, the appellants are in possession of the disputed land, situated in abadi deh, since the time of their fore-fathers. The boundary wall of the disputed land has been raised since long and they are using it as a bara for tethering cattle and storing fodder etc. Therefore, the same cannot be deemed to be a vacant land and the Gram Panchayat should not have been held to be owner of the said land. Learned counsel further argued that on the basis of long possession of the disputed land by the appellants, they be presumed to be its L.P.A. No.991 of 2011 (O&M) -3- owners. The learned Single Judge has observed that the photographs placed on record by the appellants as Annexure P-1 only indicate that the appellants have accumulated the bricks without any pucca masonry. In our opinion, by placing the bricks in this manner illegally and unauthorizedly, a person does not become owner of the site. Section 2(g)(4a) of the Act provides that the vacant land situated in abadi deh or gora deh not owned by any person, falls under the definition of Shamilat Deh. In the instant case the land in dispute is a vacant land on which the appellants have unauthorizedly and illegally encroached upon and put the bricks in the shape of boundary wall, that itself will not prove that the land was owned by them. The appellants did not lead any evidence to show that they are owners of the disputed land. Further, the contention (based upon Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) of the appellants that on the basis of long possession, they be presumed to be the owners of the disputed land, cannot be accepted because as per the finding of fact recorded by the authorities the disputed land, which was a chowk, was to be used for common purposes of the village and merely on the basis of illegal and unauthorized encroachment made by the appellants by putting some bricks on the disputed land, the possession of the appellants on the land in dispute cannot lead to the presumption that they are owners of the disputed land. Thus, in view of the finding recorded by the authorities and the aforesaid legal position, we do not find any illegality either in the order of the learned Single Judge or the L.P.A. No.991 of 2011 (O&M) -4- authorities. No merits. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 20, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) vkg JUDGE