Civil Writ Petition No.1142 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1142 of 2011 Date of Decision:23.12.2011 Surinder Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.N.P.S.Mann, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.K.S.Sivia, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Lakhwinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The conspectus of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that, during the course of Consolidation Proceedings in the year 1965, a “gair mumkin rasta”(Phirni), in question was carved out. The petitioners were stated to have encroached upon some portion of it, abutting to their land, reserved for Phirni, whereas the remaining Phirni is already in existence. 2. Now, the Gram Panchayat of Village Lalwa, (respondent No.4)(for short “the respondent-Gram Panchayat”) has decided to recover the land of Phirni under encroachment from the petitioners, in order to construct a brick-paved passage(pucca passage). 3. Aggrieved by the decision of the respondent-Gram Panchayat, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition in the nature of mandamus, directing it(Gram Panchayat) not to forcibly and illegally carved out the Phirni out Civil Writ Petition No.1142 of 2011 2 of their agricultural land. 4. During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Ajai Lamba, J.) passed the following order on January 21, 2011:- “Learned counsel, while referring to Annexure P-1, site plan, contends that at the time of consolidation, phirni around the village was left in the sajra, however, was physically not carved out. Learned counsel further asserts, while referring to Annexure P-2, photographs, that phirni is already in existence which is sufficient in measurement. Learned counsel contends that at this point of time, on account of local village politics, possession of the petitioner over the land under cultivation, shown in red colour in Annexure P-1, is being disturbed on the premise that phirni as left out from consolidation is to be carved out. Learned counsel contends that selective action is being taken. Persons who have constructed houses on the phirni by way of illegal/unauthorised construction would not be vacated while possession of the petitioner on the land comprised in Khasra No.21/5/2, 6, 15, 25/1 shall be disturbed. Notice of motion for 22.2.2011. The Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, is directed to file a specific affidavit as to whether (i) the petitioner has utilised the phirni land for cultivating his crop; (ii) whether unauthorised construction of phirni land (as left out from consolidation) has been removed or not. Affidavit be filed within three weeks of receipt of a copy of this order. Copy of the order be conveyed to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, through Mr.Anil Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, who is present in Court. Three copies of the petition have been handed over to him in lieu of service on respondent-State. Respondent No.4, Gram Panchayat, be served by way of dasti process. Copy of the order be given under signatures of the Reader of the Bench.” 5. In pursuance thereof, the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, filed the affidavit to the effect that “after the measurement(demarcation) made by the Halqa Kanungo on 07.12.2010 and 08.12.2010, it was found that the petitioner had Civil Writ Petition No.1142 of 2011 3 cultivated a part of the phirni. After the demarcation, the possession of the same was taken from the petitioner and phirni (outer circular road of the village) was restored. The petitioners and some other persons had illegally occupied the phirni land. The possession from the petitioners and from one Karnail Singh son of Sucha Singh has been taken.” 6. In this manner, the main grievance of the petitioners remains is that, although the respondent-Gram Panchayat has taken the possession of the passage from the petitioners, but it(Gram Panchayat) will not initiate any proceedings for recovery of possession from other unauthorised occupants and its action would be discriminatory. 7. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the respondent-Gram Panchayat has filed an affidavit and the Resolution dated 22.12.2011 that it(Gram Panchayat) had received the grant of brick-lining of phirni. The respondent-Gram Panchayat will ensure that all the encroachments made by the petitioners or any other residents of the village, shall be removed before laying the brick-lining on the passage(phirni). 8. Meaning thereby, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat has filed a specific affidavit that the petitioners would not be discriminated, in any manner, in this relevant connection. 9. In view of the undertaking by way of affidavit of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, learned counsel for the petitioners intends to withdraw the present writ petition. Consequently, the instant writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed for. 10. Needless to mention that, the respondent-Gram Panchayat would remove the encroachments of the entire land made by any residents of the village, before brick-lining the passage(phirni). December 23, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE