IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1117 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 05.07.2011 Gurmail Singh …..Appellant versus Director and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.N.P.S.Mann, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. No.3116 of 2011 In view of reasons mentioned in this application, which is accompanied by an affidavit, it is allowed and 187 days delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. LPA No.1117 of 2011 This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 9.11.2010, dismissing CWP No.12507 of 2010, filed by the appellant. It is apparent from the record that the Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Act for ejectment of the appellant from the land, which he had encroached upon and amalgamated in his house. After contest, application was allowed by the Collector vide order dated 30.10.2007. In the meantime, the appellant had also filed an application LPA No.1117 of 2011(O&M) under Section 11 of the Act with a prayer that he be declared owner of the land in question. That application was dismissed by the Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat at Patiala exercising the powers of Collector under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) vide order dated 6.5.2008, by observing as under:- “On perusal of the record brought on file and after hearing the arguments of the ld. counsel of both the parties, I have come to the conclusion, that jamabandi for the year 2002- 03 has been placed on record as Ex.R4 and according to it Nagar Panchayat Jand Mangoli is the owner of the disputed land. This land has been kept reserved for Gair Mumkin latrines. In support of his stand taken by the petitioner his petition that he is in possession since 26.1.1950 by constructing the house, he has failed to submit any documentary proof from which it could be established that his possession over this land is old. The petitioner has filed this petition in order to prolong the eviction proceedings filed against him. The same is dismissed. Therefore, the petition of the petitioner being baseless is dismissed.” Appellant has also failed in appeal. To lay challenge to the above said order, writ petition bearing No.12507 of 2011 was filed, which was dismissed vide the impugned order by the learned Single Judge by noting as under:- “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 2 LPA No.1117 of 2011(O&M) 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 6.5.2008 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 26.2.2010. The petitioner’s plea that the land in dispute is a part of his house which was constructed before 26.1.1950, 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 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 3 LPA No.1117 of 2011(O&M) in dispute so as to perpetuate his unauthorized occupation of land which was reserved during consolidation proceedings for public use.” It is contention of counsel for the appellant that the appellant’s only house exist in the land in dispute as such, it was incumbent for the authorities below to declare him owner of the same. We are of the opinion that the argument raised is liable to be rejected. It is on record that during consolidation proceedings, land in dispute was kept reserved for a public purpose i.e. ‘latrines’. The said land is situated next to the land owned by the appellant, taking benefit of the same, when house was constructed, the appellant amalgamated the said part of the land of the Gram Panchayat in his house. The appellant is a law breaker. In view of that, he is not entitled to get any relief from this Court. There is nothing on record to show that house of the appellant was in existence before the year 1950. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 05.07.2011 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 4