IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1005 of 2011 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 13.09.2011 Mool Chand and others .... APPELLANTS Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the appellants. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 16.12.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by Vikram Singh (father of appellants No.1 to 4), Chinta Ram (father of appellants No.5 and 6), Mool Chand (appellant No.7) and Dharambir (appellant No.8), challenging the order dated 19.2.2008, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad, has been dismissed. In this case, the appellants have encroached upon a part of the land, which was Gair Mumkin Jhor (village pond reserved for the village community and vest in the Gram Panchayat). Undisputedly, the appellants LPA No. 1005 of 2011 -2- have been ordered to be ejected from the said part of the land on an application filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. It is also undisputed position that the order of eviction, passed against the appellants in the year 1992 has become final. Thereafter, the appellants filed writ petition before this Court, wherein they were given liberty to move an application for purchase of the land under the policy of the State Government. Vide order dated 19.2.2008, Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad rejected the prayer of the appellants, because when the application of the appellants was sent to the Gram Panchayat, the Gram Panchayat vide its resolution dated 15.10.2007 declined to permit the appellants to purchase the land, while resolving that it will be against the interest of the Gram Panchayat. Under the policy of the State Government, only non-cultivable land of the Gram Panchayat, where the house has been constructed and which is in unauthorised possession, can be allowed to be purchased after approval from the Director, but in the present case, the disputed portion of the land, on part of which the appellants have constructed the house, is part of the village pond, which is used by the inhabitants of the village for common purposes and such land could not have been permitted to be purchased by the illegal occupants. In a similar case in Ram Kumar and others v. The State of Haryana and others, ( LPA No. 1475 of 2010), a Division Bench of this Court has held as under : “In our view, the appellants, who have been found in illegal LPA No. 1005 of 2011 -3- and unauthorised occupation of the part of gair mumkin johar, cannot be allowed to purchase the same, on which they have raised construction. Under the aforesaid Policy and the Rules, only unauthorised occupants of uncultivable shamilat deh land can get the land transferred in their favour, but if the land is used for any common purpose of the inhabitants of the village, the same cannot be transferred at all, to any unauthorised occupant” In view of the above, after hearing learned counsel for the appellants, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, passed by the learned Single Judge. No merits. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE September 13, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE