Civil Writ Petition No. 14820 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 14820 of 2007 Date of Order: 16.07.2010 Dariyao singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Wasu,Sr. DAG, Haryana for respondents no.1 to 3 Mr. Saurav Mohunta, Advocate for respondents no.5 and 6. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 16.03.2006, 07.12.2006 and 08.06.2007, passed by the Collector, Ganaur, Collector, Sonipat and the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, respectively. Pursuant to the impugned orders, a finding came to be recorded that the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation of panchayat property. As the impugned orders appeared to be factually incorrect, the Naib Tehsildar, Ganaur, was directed to demarcate the land afresh. The Naib Tehsildar, Ganaur, has submitted a demarcation report dated 09.12.2009, which is taken on Civil Writ Petition No. 14820 of 2007 -2- record. A perusal of the report and the site plan prepared by the Naib Tehsildar, in the presence of both parties discloses that instead of the petitioners, respondent no.6 Rajpal son of Shish Ram, is in unauthorised occupation of a part of rasta no.183. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the petitioners have not been found in unauthorised possession of any part of panchayat property, the writ petition be allowed and orders dated 16.03.2006, 07.12.2006 and 08.06.2007 should be set aside. Counsel for respondents no.5 and 6 is unable to advance any argument against the correctness of demarcation report. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the demarcation report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar, Ganaur, and am satisfied that the petitioners are not in unauthorised ocupation of any part of rasta no.183. The demarcation report in fact points out that Raj Pal, respondent no.6 is in unauthorised possession of a part of rasta no.183. It is, therefore, beyond debate that the petitioners have been wrongly held to be in unauthorised occupation of panchayat property. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed, the orders dated 16.03.2006, 07.12.2006 and 08.06.2007 are set aside. The petitioners would be at liberty to initiate proceedings for ejectment of Rajpal, on the basis of the demarcation report. No order as to costs. July 16, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE