IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 20342 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 29.11.2011 Neki Ram .... PETITIONER Versus Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. This writ petition has been directed against the orders dated 31.3.2004; 29.4.2005 and 1.3.2011 (Annexures P-1; P-3 and P-9), passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kaithal; Collector, Kaithal; and the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, respectively, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from part of khasra No. 254 to the extent of 15 marlas out of land measuring 8 kanals 18 marlas, which is a passage. It has been found by all the above authorities that the petitioner has illegally encroached upon the said area by constructing a boundary wall, which causes hindrance in the ingress and outgress of the residents of the village. CWP No. 20342 of 2011 -2- The orders of eviction, passed by the authorities, are based upon the demarcation report dated 13.8.2003 (Ex.A2), which clearly established the illegal and unauthorised possession of the petitioner on part of the land of the said passage. At one stage, the writ petition (CWP No. 10262 of 2007) filed by the petitioner against the impugned order was allowed by this Court and while setting aside the order, passed by the Commissioner, the matter was remitted to the Commissioner to decide the revision petition afresh after taking into consideration the resolution dated 30.3.2005 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Gram Panchayat, wherein it was stated that on the disputed portion of the land, house of the petitioner is existing prior to 1950, therefore, in view of proviso (vi) to Section 2 (g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (As Applicable to Haryana), such land is excluded from `shamilat deh'. After the remand, the learned Commissioner re-examined the issue and vide order dated 1.3.2011 (Annexure P-9) came to the conclusion that except the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, there is no other evidence to establish that part of the house of the petitioner was existing on the disputed site prior to 1950, while observing as under :- “It has been clearly mentioned on the Demarcation Report Ex.A2 and Naksha Mark-A that the applicant Neki Ram has constructed a house & boundary wall over 0K-15M Raqba of passage and has illegal possession over the same. In the ejectment application before Assistant Collector, Gram Panchayat, Kakot was also respondent No.2. Before Assistant CWP No. 20342 of 2011 -3- Collector Ist Grade, Gram Panchayat Kakot has not placed any resolution of Gram Panchayat in regards with the possession of the applicant before 1950. But due to absence of any person of the Gram Panchayat in the Court, in the order dated 15.1.2004 of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, ex-parte proceedings were done against the Gram Panchayat. As to when, it is the responsibility of the Gram Panchayat to protect the property of the Gram Panchayat which is a constitutional organisation. The application had produced a certificate signed by Sarpanch/ Panches on 30.3.2005 before Collector, Kaithal during the proceedings of the appeal. Collector has clearly mentioned in his order dated 29.4.2005; that the illegal possession of the applicant on Khasra No. 254, property of Gram Panchayat, has been proved. No body has any right of illegal possession over the public passage, the property of Gram Panchayat. The applicant cannot produce any proof during argument before me that the disputed land Khasra No. 254 public passage is not the property of Gram Panchayat. Merely producing certificate signed by Sarpanch/Panches, illegal possession of anybody cannot be approved. In my opinion the inspection order of the lower courts are justified and there is no lapse in these orders.” We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned orders. Again, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the sole contention that house of the petitioner is existing since 1950. When he was asked to substantiate his claim through any documentary evidence, he only referred to the resolution/certificate dated 30.3.2005 (Annexure P-2) passed/issued by the Gram Panchayat. Undisputedly, the revenue record CWP No. 20342 of 2011 -4- with regard to khasra No. 254 is available and in that record, there is no mention that pacca house of the petitioner is existing on the part of the passage. Jamabandi for the year 2002-03, clearly establishes that Khasra No. 254 is Gair Mumkin passage measuring 8 Kanals 18 Marlas. In the revenue record, there is no mention that on the part of the passage, illegal constructions were existing prior to 1950. In our opinion, the Commissioner has rightly ignored the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat in the year 2003. Some times, under the political pressure or in order to favour their supporter, the Gram Panchayat issues such certificates. On the basis of such a certificate, the authorities cannot reach to the conclusion that a particular person has constructed the house in passage long back. Thus, in our view, the learned Commissioner has not committed any illegality, while ignoring the said resolution/certificate and confirming the order of ejectment passed against the petitioner, which is based upon the demarcation report. No merits. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 29, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE