IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.994 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 31.05.2011 Raj Bala and others …..Appellants versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the appellants Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. No.2796 of 2011 In view of reasons mentioned in this application, which is accompanied by an affidavit, it is allowed and 3 days delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. LPA No.994 of 2011 Appellants filed a suit under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to Haryana (in short, the Act), claiming title over the land, in dispute. The Collector, after receipt of reply from the Gram Panchayat, wherein it was alleged that the property, in dispute is a part of the village Chowk/ street, framed the issues, ample opportunity was given to both the parties to lead evidence and then, came to the following conclusion:- “As it is cleared from the notice and site plan issued by Block Development and Panchayat Officer, that the land in question is an part of chownk, which is a vacant land falls in LPA No.994 of 2011(O&M) the abadi deh and the same vests in the Gram Panchayat Land according to rule. The brother of the father of the plaintiff has also entered into a written compromise in the year 1997 that he will removed the encroachment, on which the plaintiff had made the four walls. In these situation, it is not said that the possession over the suit land of the plaintiffs are old. It is also not proved from the witnesses of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff’s possession over the suit land is an old. It seems that this encroachment has been made by plaintiff during the time of issuance of notice and for which a compromise has been written for removing of the abovesaid encroachment. So, in these situation no cogent evidence has been produced by the plaintiffs which proves that the plaintiffs are owners in possession and their possession is very old. So, the findings on this issue is against the plaintiffs and in favour of the Gram Panchyayat. Issue No.2 As it is cleared above that brother of plaintiffs’ father has admitted this fact that he will remove the unauthorized possession during the time of compromise before the Panchayat. So, in these view the notice cannot be said illegal and wrong. This notice has been issued after found of prima facie that the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land in question. So, the findings on this issue is also against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant Gram Panchayat. Issue No.3 2 LPA No.994 of 2011(O&M) From the above stated findings plaintiffs have no right to get the permanent injunction against the defendant, so the findings on this issue also against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant Gram Panchayat.” Appellants went in appeal, which was dismissed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division on 24.09.2008. It was noted that the appellants have failed to prove that they were owners of the land in dispute. Thereafter, the appellants went in revision, which was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana on 2.12.2009. By making reference to a document D2, it was observed that the uncle (brother of the appellant’s father) had given an undertaking vide compromise deed dated 13.7.1997 that they will vacate the land in their unauthorized occupation. It was further noted that PW1 had admitted that the land in dispute is a part of the village Chowk. By noting the above said fact, it was said that the land vest in the Gram Panchayat as per the provisions of Section 2(g) of the Act. Thereafter, appellants came to this Court by filling CWP No.7582 of 2010, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated on 23.3.2011. The learned Single Judge also placed reliance upon the documents which were noted by the Financial Commissioner and rightly came to a conclusion that land in dispute is a part of the village street/ chowk. It was further observed that the appellants have failed to prove that they were owners of the land in dispute. We feel that the order passed is perfectly justified. At the time of arguments counsel for the appellants has brought to our notice an affidavit (A2), executed by the village Sarpanch Anil Kumar, wherein it is stated that the Gram Panchayat had no connection 3 LPA No.994 of 2011(O&M) whatsoever with the land in dispute. We feel that this affidavit is against the interest of the Gram Panchayat. Once, the Gram Panchayat has won the case before all the authorities below, it does not lie in the mouth of the Sarpanch, to say to the contrary. Not only as above, when written statement was filed in this Court by that very Sarpanch, it was specifically averred therein that Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land in dispute and appellants are in unauthorized occupation of the same. We feel that Sarpanch Gram Panchayat has acted against the authority/power given to him under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Taking note of the same, we direct Director Panchayats, Haryana to take action against the Sarpanch Anil Kumar for dereliction of duties. The officer concerned will take note of the written statement filed, evidence on record and also the affidavit filed by the Sarpanch Anil Kumar. Report of action taken be sent to this Court for perusal. In view of facts mentioned above, this writ petition stands dismissed. The Registry is directed to send a copy of the appeal along with a copy of this order to the Director Panchayats, Haryana, forthwith for necessary action. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 31.05.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 4