L.P.A. No.314 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.314 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 22, 2011 Anand …APPELLANT VERSUS State of Haryana and others …RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- PRESENT: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellant. … SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The appellant, who along with others, is held to have encroached upon the common purpose land of the Gram Panchayat, has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 7.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.20732 of 2008, whereby their writ petition challenging the orders passed by the authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') ordering their ejectment from the said portion of the common land, has been dismissed. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned order as well as the orders dated 7.9.2007, 8.10.2007 and 17.10.2008 passed by the authorities under the Act. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by L.P.A. No.314 of 2011 (O&M) -2- the appellant and others, while recording the following finding:- “A perusal of the site plan reveals that the land in question lies between a street and the petitioners house. The street is bounded by drains on both sides. The village chaupal lies across the street. The Collector, the Appellate Authority and the revisional authority have returned concurrent findings of fact that the land in dispute was used by residents of the village for parking their tractors, carts etc., before the petitioners encroached upon the land by constructing a ramp and a chabutra. I find no reason whether in fact or in law to differ with these findings of fact. As regards the plea that the land in dispute belongs to the petitioners as they have constructed a chabutra and a ramp, suffice is to to state that the Assistant Collector has recorded a finding, duly affirmed by the Collector and the Commissioner that the land in dispute was used by residents of the village for parking vehicles, tractors, carts etc. before the petitioners encroached upon this land by constructing a chabutra and a ramp measuring 10X18 feet and 10X12 feet respectively. The petitioners cannot claim ownership merely on the plea that the land abuts their house or that they have raised construction. The land is public property used by the villagers to park their carts and tractors etc. The photographs of the site, furnished during arguments, and the alignment of the street clearly establish that the land in dispute was vacant land abutting the petitioners house that has been encroached by the petitioners.” Learned counsel for the appellant, without controverting the aforesaid factual position, has argued that the appellant had raised construction of a ramp and a Chabutra on their land and they have not encroached upon the abadi land owned by the Gram Panchayat, which is being used by the inhabitants of the village for common purposes. But in L.P.A. No.314 of 2011 (O&M) -3- support of his contention, learned counsel could not refer to any evidence led by them before the authorities under the Act. In our view, in this appeal, no question of law is involved. The authorities under the Act have recorded a finding of fact to the effect that the appellant and others have illegally encroached upon the vacant land which was lying in front of their house and is being used by the inhabitants of the village for common purposes. Since no material was placed by the appellant regarding ownership of that portion, therefore, the authorities under the Act have rightly passed the order of ejectment. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the authorities under the Act nor in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 22, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE