IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.20655 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 31, 2011 SURAJBHAN & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE COMMISISONER, ROHTAK DIVISION & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. GS Duhan, Advocate, for Mr. SR Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. SS Nara, Sr.DAG, Haryana. Mr. SP Chahar, Advocate, for the respondent No.4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 Surajbhan and Hoshiar Singh, residents of Village Safiabad, Tehsil and District Sonepat, have approached this Court in challenge to order dated 17.7.2008 (Annexure P-12), passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, in revisional jurisdiction under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), in a matter arising out of an application under Section 7 of the Act, having been initiated initially at the instance of respondent No.5-Shiv Kumar, resident of the village. 2 The case has a checkered history from 1990 till 2008. The Civil Writ Petition No.20655 of 2008 2 case has been remanded by the Collector and Commissioner four times. Most relevant orders for adjudication, however, are only order dated 27.6.2007 (Annexure P-11), passed by the Commissioner, remanding the case to the Collector, order dated 30.1.2008 (Annexure P-13), passed by the Collector after remand, vide which the petitioners have been directed to be evicted and order dated 17.7.2008 (Annexure P-12), vide which the revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 3 Order (Annexure P-11), passed by the Commissioner, notices the following facts, which when extracted, read as under:- “4. After considering arguments from both the sides and perusing through the relevant record brought on the file, it has been clearly proved through evidence on the file that there was no construction on the disputed site by the respondents No.1 and 2 and they were ejected for the first time vide order dated 29.7.1991 by Shri Tarun Bajaj, SDO (Civil)-cum-A.C. Ist Grade, Sonepat. This order was passed after inspecting the site by the said A.C. Ist Grade and details of the site as seen during inspection, have also been mentioned in the said order. As per inspection report enclosed with the said order it has been stated that the well in question was old one wherefrom all villagers drew water and it was confirmed by the people present at the site that plot in question was Share-am plot meant for common purposes over which a platform of 6 x 10 ft. existed. It is further revealed from the written statement of Suraj Bhan etc., respondents filed before the A.C. Ist Grade on 17.1.1991 that it was a plot over which a well and hand pump existed. On these grounds, it is proved beyond doubt that earlier it was an open vacant plot till 1911 but because the said respondents were having adjoining house, thereafter they have constructed a boundary wall over the same. It is quite surprising that both the lower Civil Writ Petition No.20655 of 2008 3 courts have failed to appraise the total evidence on the file and they have wrongly relied upon Chullah Tax receipt and bills of electricity which do not pertain to this plot and probably pertain to adjoining house of the respondents. During arguments, contention of the counsel for the respondents that the admission of respondents about the plot being vacant site actually pertains to a separate land, cannot be given any weightage because there was no ground for the respondents to talk of other plot when the proceedings related to the site in question. Mark-A, which is an application is also a futile exercise by the respondents to rope in people of his preference in support of his contention which has not been proved on the basis of evidence on the file. On these grounds, the impugned orders of the lower courts are set aside and the case is remanded back to the Collector to decide the same afresh purely on merit after appraising evidence correctly and cross checking the same, if necessary.” 4 After remand, the Collector passed order (Annexure P-13), holding that demarcation of the disputed land had been got conducted by the Tehsildar. As per the demarcation report, the petitioners have been found to have encroached on 109 square yards of land by erecting a boundary wall and house in excess of their purchased land. The demarcation report had been read over to the parties, however, no objection thereto was raised and, therefore, the demarcation report itself has been accepted by the parties, i.e., including the petitioners. Under these circumstances, the Collector directed the petitioners to be evicted from land measuring 109 square yards, as per demarcation report dated 28.1.2008 on having been found in unauthorized possession. 5 It appears that the petitioners carried a revision petition Civil Writ Petition No.20655 of 2008 4 before the Commissioner, which has been dismissed vide order dated 17.7.2008 (Annexure P-12), thus, upholding the order of eviction. The Commissioner has noticed that it was on the request of the petitioners that a Local Commission was appointed and the land was demarcated. The petitioners gave an undertaking that if on demarcation, the petitioners were found to be in possession of the land in excess to their purchased land, they would remove their possession from the same. At that stage, before the Commissioner, the petitioners tried to develop an argument that the well was, in fact, a personal Kuee (small well) meant for personal use and it was not public land wherein a well had been installed for public use. The argument has been rejected by the Commissioner in view of demarcation report and the stand taken by the petitioners at earlier point in time. 6 Learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of the facts that have emerged on a perusal of the orders, has not been able to substantiate any case in favour of the petitioners. 7 I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. 8 The facts, when considered in totality, indicate that an old well had been installed wherefrom all the villagers drew water. It was a Share-am plot meant for common purposes over which a platform of 6 feet x 10 feet existed. The plot was vacant till 1991. The petitioners, however, were having a house adjoining to the area and, therefore, so as to encroach, they constructed a boundary wall over the said land. The facts have been verified by way of demarcation report and a finding of fact against the petitioners has been recorded. In such circumstances, in extra Civil Writ Petition No.20655 of 2008 5 ordinary writ jurisdiction, no indulgence can be shown, particularly because the land was being used for common purposes. 9 No arbitrariness or perversity in the orders can be traced. Even equity demands that the land is restored for common use of the villagers, they having been deprived of the use since 1991 when the petitioners encroached upon the same. The petitioners have been successful in maintaining possession over the land for such a long time by filing appeals/revisions and having the matter remanded at one stage or the other. There must come an end to every lis and the matters cannot be reopened on technicalities, particularly when equitable relief demands adjudication. 10 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. January 31, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?