IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 157 of 2011 (O and M) Date of Decision : January 31, 2011. Prem Singh @ Prem Raj ............. Appellant Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, (Exercising the power of Commissioner) Vikas Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL. Present:- Mr. Amarjit Singh Sandhu, Advocate, for the appellant/petitioner. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL). This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 15.09.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition No. 16512 of 2010, challenging the order of ejectment passed by the Commissioner under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, (for short 'the Lands Act') has been dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. In the present case, the Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7(2) of the Lands Act for eviction of the petitioner (appellant herein) from the land, which is comprising of khasra No. 482, owned by the Gram Panchayat. The Collector (Panchayat Land)-cum-DDPO, Patiala, after hearing the Gram Panchayat as well as the appellant and providing opportunity of hearing to the appellant to defend his case, passed the order dated 30.12.2008, whereby the appellant was ordered to be evicted from the encroached land. The said order was affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner, LPA No. 157 of 2011 (O and M) -2- vide order dated 09.07.2010. The writ petition filed by the petitioner (appellant herein), challenging those orders has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. In the present case, the dispute is about certain land, which has been illegally encroached upon by the appellant from khasra No. 482. Undisputedly, the said khasra number belongs to the Gram Panchayat. As per jamabandi for the year 2002-03, the disputed land is owned by the Gram Panchayat and the same has been recorded as gair mumkin chappar. It is the case of the Gram Panchayat that the area which has been encroached by the appellant was being used as a passage by the inhabitants of the village. Both the authorities under the Lands Act after providing opportunity of hearing to the appellant recorded finding of fact that the appellant has encroached upon certain land of the said khasra number, which is being used as a passage by the inhabitants of the village. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute the said finding. However, his argument is that the appellant has raised certain construction on the encroached land twenty years ago, therefore, instead of ordering eviction of the appellant from the land, the authorities under the Lands Act should have allowed him to be in continuous possession of encroached land by making price of the said land at the market rate. In support of this contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon a Single Bench Judgment of this Court in Mukhtiara Versus Collector, Kurukshetra, 1995 (3) PLR 264. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel and perused the said judgment and do not find any force in the same. Undisputedly, in the present case, the petitioner (appellant herein) has encroached upon certain land of the Gram Panchayat, which is being used LPA No. 157 of 2011 (O and M) -3- for common purpose by the inhabitants of the village. In our view such a land cannot be encroached by the appellant and such a land cannot be legalised by making payment to the Gram Panchayat at the market price. Even the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel clearly held that if the land is required or meant for common purpose, the same could not be allowed to be in continuous possession of the unauthorised occupants at the current market price. Thus, in our view both the authorities have rightly passed the order of eviction against the appellant and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, challenging the abovesaid orders. Thus, there is no merit in the present appeal. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (M. JEYAPAUL) JUDGE January 31, 2011. sjks.