CWP No.4375 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.4375 of 2010 Date of Decision: 12.3.2010 Bhim Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Commissioner Rohtak Division, Rohtak and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside orders dated 8.6.2009, 18.82009 and 25.2.2010, passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Jhajjar, the Collector, Jhajjar and the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, directing the ejectment of the petitioner from a shamlat chowk. The Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) on the ground that the petitioner and others have encroached upon panchayat property. The petitioner opposed the prayer in the petition by asserting that the land abuts his house and is, therefore, his private property. The Assistant Collector perused the evidence, considered the site plan on record and after recording a finding that the petitioner has encroached upon CWP No.4375 of 2010 2 Baba Hansa Chowk by constructing a kitchen, ordered his ejectment. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal. The Collector dismissed the appeal as did the Commissioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of any evidence, documentary or otherwise, to establish that this land is owned by the Gram Panchayat, the Assistant Collector was required to follow the procedure prescribed by proviso to Section 7(2) of the Act and decide the question of title, like a civil suit. The Assistant Collector, however, did not follow the procedure. The witnesses produced by the Gram Panchayat have admitted the petitioner's ownership, as they have asserted that they are co- sharers alongwith the petitioner. In view of these admissions, the Assistant Collector could not have ordered the petitioner's ejectment. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned orders and find no reason to hold in favour of the petitioner. As per the findings recorded by the Assistant Collector, affirmed by the Collector and the Commissioner, the petitioner has encroached upon a public chowk that bears the name of Baba Hansa by constructing a kitchen `GHIE'. A perusal of the site plan Ex.A-1, leaves no manner of doubt that the construction `GHIE' extends into the chowk. Sub-section 4 of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana, clearly provides that streets and lanes within the abadi deh shall vest in the Gram Panchayat. A chowk is place where roads, intersects is used by the public at large and, therefore, vests in the Gram Panchayat. No question of title, much less as asserted by the petitioner, arises for adjudication. The petitioner has failed to place any material on record to raise a prima facie inference of his ownership. The statement of CWP No.4375 of 2010 3 witnesses produced by the Gram Panchayat, when read in their entirety clearly negate the alleged admissions. No merit. Dismissed. 12.3.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE