IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CASE NO.: L.P.A. No.402 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : May 25,2009 Maya Ram and others .......Appellants versus State of Haryana & others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Sheoran, Advocate for the appellants. NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The impugned order dated 01-04-2009 passed by learned Single Judge has been challenged, on the ground that inspite of there being a specific order passed by the Collector, Bhiwani on 15-06-1992 remanding back the case with the direction that it should first ascertain the year when the house was constructed on the disputed land and thereafter the case be decided after carrying out the spot inspection and facts, it was ignored that there was a total violation of the remand order passed by the Collector in the sense that the learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade has not specified about the age of the construction. There is no observation by the Assistant Collector as to how old is the construction on the disputed land which has been made by the appellants. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and examining L.P.A. No.402 of 2009 -2- the orders passed by the various Courts, we find that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Dadri, District Bhiwani vide his order dated 16-01-1997 (Annexure P-1) specifically held that the construction of boundary wall, chappar and bar etc. showed that the same was made a few days prior to filing of the application and this fact was confirmed by the persons, present at the spot. Thus, the time when the house was constructed, was duly ascertained. The said findings of the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Dadri, District Bhiwani is reproduced below :- “ I found that the land in dispute is Gair Mumkin Johar and it seems that respondent has encroached upon the aforesaid land few days prior to the filing of the present petition. The spot inspection regarding the encroachment was carried out by me, Kanungo and concerned Patwari which is on the record of the file. Respondents Dalu Ram and Chand Ram sons of Hari Ram have encroached 81 x 41 ft by constructing boundary wall and bar and Imrat son of Jot Ram has encroached 81 x 32 sq. ft. by way of raising boundary wall and chhappar and Khushi Ram son of Bhagirath has encroached 35 x 33 sq. ft. by way of making bar etc. The aforesaid area upon which respondents have encroached was in the southern side of their houses on the Gair Mumkin Johar and aforesaid encroachment shows that respondents encroached by way of making door on the vacant land after completing their houses. The construction of boundary wall, chhappar and bar etc. shows that same was made a few days prior to filing the present application. The villagers and the persons present at the spot have also confirmed the same.” It is also evident that the said spot inspection was in the L.P.A. No.402 of 2009 -3- presence of both the parties and due opportunity was granted. Demarcation was carried out after the consent of learned counsel for the parties. In fact, the Collector, Bhiwani vide order dated 29-11-1999 further recorded that the spot inspection was carried out by the lower Court two times and the illegal possession of the appellants was confirmed. In view of the above facts, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment dated 01-04-2009 passed by the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly dismissed, being devoid of merits. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE May 25, 2009 gurpreet Whether to be referred to the Reporter : Yes / No