CWP No.11659 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.11659 of 2007 Date of Decision: 3.2.2010 Ram Phal .....Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl. A.G. Hayana for respondents no. 1 to 3. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing orders dated 29.10.2002, 25.4.2005 and 23.3.2007, passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sonepat, the Collector, Sonepat and the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, ordering the petitioner's ejectment from Khasra no.66/2. A co-villager filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') alleging that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of around 1200 Sq.yards in Khasra no.66/2 (3 kanals 11 marlas), which is a gair mumkin johar (uncultivable pond). The petitioner opposed the prayer CWP No.11659 of 2007 2 in the application by asserting that he is owner in possession and, therefore, cannot be ejected by the Gram Panchayat. Upon a due consideration of the pleadings and the evidence adduced, the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sonepat, recorded a finding that the petitioner is in unauthorised possession of land falling in Khasra No.66/2 (3 kanals 11 marlas) and, therefore, ordered the petitioner's ejectment. The appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner, challenging the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sonepat, were dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in occupation of the land in dispute for the last 40 years and, therefore, cannot be ejected arbitrarily. The site inspection report has been recorded in violation of Financial Commissioner's instructions and the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders. As the findings against the petitioner are based upon this report, they should be set aside. It is further submitted that in the absence of any firm finding, as to the area under the petitioner's unauthorised occupation, the petitioner cannot be ejected. Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Gram Panchayat or private respondent no.5. Counsel for the State of Haryana, submits that the petitioner's assertion that the exact area in his possession has not been determined, has been taken care of by the Commissioner, as he has directed the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sonepat, to properly measure/demarcate the land during execution. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. CWP No.11659 of 2007 3 Admittedly, Khasra no.66/2 measuring 3 kanals 11 marlas belongs to the Gram Panchayat. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sonepat, has returned a finding that the petitioner is in unauthorised possession of a part thereof. The petitioner does not deny his possession but asserts that he has been in possession for the last more than 40 years. The argument that the demarcation report is illegal must fail, as the petitioner has admitted his possession. The only question is the area in the petitioner's possession. The initial prayer in the application for ejectment was to direct the petitioner's ejectment from around 1200 sq.yards situated in Khasra no.66/2 (3 kanals 11 marlas). I find no reason to hold that the authorities under the Act were not justified in directing the petitioner's ejectment. A gair mumkin johar is public property and vests in the Gram Panchayat. No individual, much less the petitioner, may encroach upon a gair mumkin johar. However, the petitioner's apprehension that he would be ejected from the part of the land, which is not gair mumkin johar has been met by the Commissioner by passing the following order :- “After hearing arguments from both the sides and perusing through the relevant record brought on the file, I do not find any irregularity in the impugned orders of the lower courts. It has been mentioned by the A.C. Ist Grade that area of Khasra no.66/2 measuring 3 kanals 11 Marlas was found in encroachment by laying foundation and by planting some Kikar trees at site. The Collector after discussing at length the evidence from both the sides, has concurred with the findings of the A.C. Ist Grade and has observed that since ejectment order was passed by the CWP No.11659 of 2007 4 A.C. Ist Grade after inspecting the site, therefore, there is no infirmity in the same. Since the petitioner has failed to prove through any oral or documentary evidence that the disputed land is owned by him, there does not appear any force in the revision petition and, therefore, the same is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, it is ordered that the A.C. Ist Grade would get the site properly measured/demarcated in the presence of both the parties at the time of execution of the said ejectment order.” In view of what has been stated herein above, the present petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. 3.2.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE