CWP No.10118 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.10118 of 1992 Date of decision April 29, 2011 Raghbir Singh ....... Petitioner Versus The Collector, Rewari and others ........Respondents CWP No. 13925 of 1989 Bahadur Singh and others ....... Petitioner Versus The Collector, Narnaul and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3,5,6,8 and 9. Mr. S. S. Gorakhpuria, Advocate for respondent Nos.1,2 and 4. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the cases contends that he is not in possession of the property nor is he making any assertion on purported title over the property in dispute. He only seeks the right of passage over the property claimed to be rasta. I have dealt with a similar point in CWP No. 11053 of 1989 as follows: “A person that uses the property as a passage may not CWP No.10118 of 1992 2 legally posses the property, but he could be said to subject the property to such use which is in derogation of the owner's right. In my view, if the Panchayat was interested in protecting the property against any misuse by any possible construction in future, it could have its injunctive relief in a civil Court. If a construction is made unauthorizedly, it could resort to an action under Section 7 of the Act for its removal. An apprehended action of the petitioner for using the property as passage cannot come within the four corners of Section 7. A right of passage is a right asserted over the property and not an assertion in the specie of property itself. It is in the nature of easement. 2, While disposing it of, therefore, I have directed that the authority cannot have right of ejectment under Section 7 of the Act and if only there is actual encroachment of the property and held in unlawful possession a right of ejectment under Section 7 will lie. If further there is an attempt on the part of any of the petitioners to claim any right in derogation of the right that vests in the Panchayat over the rasta by unlawful possession of the same, the Panchayat should take resort to action for ejectment. For any apprehended action, the Panchayat complains of, the proper remedy cannot be under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupant) Act. The impugned order is quashed and the writ petitions are allowed reserving to the Panchayat, a right to present a misuse which is in derogation of the vesting of title of the property in the hands of the Panchayat. 3. The writ petitions are allowed as above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 29, 2011 archana