CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20116 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 30, 2009 Jagir Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Gram Panchayat, Village Bahmanian, District Jalandhar and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. G.S.Thind, Advocate & Mr. Arun Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. S. Dhiman, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing order, Annexure P-10, whereby the appeal filed by respondent No.1 was allowed and the ejectment of the petitioner was ordered. While issuing notice of motion in this case, this Court CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20116 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: stayed the dispossession of the petitioner on 1.12.2008. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that he was ready and willing to give the land equivalent to the land occupied by him within the same village or alternatively to give compensation at twice the Collector rate for the land in his possession was noticed while issuing notice of motion. The order reads as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the fact that the petitioner has made construction over the land in question, as is apparent from Annexure P-16, the petitioner will be satisfied if the Gram Panchayat (respondent No.1) is willing to accept the land equivalent to the land occupied by the petitioner within the same village (adjacent to existing land belonging to the Gram Panchayat), or alternatively to accept compensation at twice the Collector's rate for the land in possession of the petitioner. Notice of motion for 17.3.2009. Dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed in the meanwhile.” During the course of arguments, it was submitted on behalf of the Panchayat that the house is in a public street, which was disputed by the petitioner. State counsel was accordingly directed to have instructions from the competent officer as to the factual position in this regard. A copy of the report was directed to be placed on record of this case. These directions were complied with and report in this regard was placed on the file. This Court accordingly passed the following order on May 18, 2009:- CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20116 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: “Noticing the argument raised by the counsel for the Panchayat that the petitioner had constructed a house in the public street, which was disputed by the counsel for the petitioner, directions were issued on 7.5.2009 to the State to see if the petitioner had constructed a house in street. An affidavit is now filed. A site plan has also been placed on record. The dispute is regarding a path from B to C as shown in site plan. As per the site plan, B to C is a land which is being cultivated by Mohinder Kaur. Accordingly it cannot be said that this area has been encroached by the petitioner. There is thus no encroachment. Order of issuing notice of motion would show that the counsel for the petitioner at that stage had voluntarily stated that he would be satisfied in case Gram Panchayat accepts the land equivalent to the land occupied by the petitioner in the same village adjacent to the existing land belonging to the Gram Panchayat or alternatively to accept the compensation at twice the Collector's rate for the land in possession of the petitioner. This is not regarding the land allegedly encroached from the street. Counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner still stands by this statement made on his behalf on December 1, 2008. Let the Panchayat consider this request made by the petitioner, which is in the alternative and come out with the proposal as to which part of the offer made by the petitioner is acceptable to it. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20116 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: Adjourned to 25.5.2009. Interim order to continue.” Since there was no encroachment of the street found, the Panchayat was given time to take a decision whether it would be satisfied by accepting the land equal to the land occupied by the petitioner or alternatively would wish to accept compensation at twice the Collector rate for the land in possession of the petitioner. The case was accordingly adjourned. The counsel for the Panchayat today points out that Panchayat is not willing to accept any of the proposal put by the petitioner. Today, counsel has also put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.4. He has opposed the plea of the petitioner. Counsel for respondent No.4 has disputed the fact that this land was sold to the petitioner by the respondent. It appears that the Panchayat is unnecessarily trying to create problem for the petitioner. The petitioner apparently has constructed a house and as per the report has not encroached upon any street. His plea is that it may be a private street leading to his house construed on a land bought by him from the private respondent. This will explain the attitude of respondent No.4 in objecting to the proposal being accepted. The petitioner, thus, is given liberty to deposit the compensation at twice the Collector rate for the land in his possession in the accounts of the Gram Panchayat. This order is basically passed in equity considering that the petitioner has constructed a house and is ready to compensate the Gram Panchayat for any land which is found to be encroached by him but is not part of any street. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20116 OF 2008 :{ 5 }: The petitioner will have two weeks time from the date of receipt of the order to deposit the compensation, which shall be calculated at the Collector's rate prevailing in the area for the land in occupation of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. May 30, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE