THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus SATPAL & ORS.
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 12, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Body
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
v.
SATPAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2984-2985 of 2022)
MARCH 03, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act – Punjab Village
Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964 – r. 12 – Unauthorised
possession – Respondents were alleged to be in the possession of a
land, which was claimed to be belonging to Gram Panchayat and was
meant for construction of school thus giving rise to the dispute between
the appellant and the respondents – On the application of the sarpanch,
the demarcation proceedings were carried out with respect to the land
in which the unauthorized possession of the respondent was shown –
The eviction proceeding were initiated and the respondent was ultimately
evicted and the appeal by the respondents before the Collector and
thereafter before the Commissioner was rejected – Writ petition – High
Court directed for fresh demarcation – Pursuant thereto, Local
Commissioner filed its report, the High Court ultimately directed the
parties to invoke powers under Rule 12 and determine the market
value of the land to the extent to which it is under occupation of the
respondent, namely, the land where houses are constructed and
wherever the vacant area can be segregated from the residential
house, it can be separated and utilized for earmarked purpose,
i.e., school premises – Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant
preferred appeal before the
Supreme Court – Held : Under the
circumstances, the High Court has committed a very serious error
in directing to legalise the unauthorized occupation and possession
made by the original writ petitioners on payment of market price –
Even the other directions issued by the High Court are not capable
of being implemented,namely, to segregate the vacant land from the
residential house and which can be separated and utilised for
earmarked purpose, i.e., school premises – Further there is no other
panchayati land and/or other land, which is available, which can
be used as school premises/playground and the adjacent land
belongs to some private persons and they are not ready to part with
their land to be used as school premises/playground.
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 12
12
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
13
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It cannot be disputed that the original writ
petitioners are in illegal and unauthorized occupation of the Gram
Panchayat land to the extent of 5 kanal and 4 marla out of 11
kanals and 15 marla reserved for the purpose of the school. As
observed hereinabove, there is no playground at all. The school
is surrounded by the unauthorized construction made by the
original writ petitioners. Therefore, the unauthorized occupation
and possession of the land, which is reserved for the school and
the playground, cannot be directed to be legalized. There cannot
be any school without playground. Even the students, who study
in such a school are entitled to a good environment. [Para 4][18-
E-F]
2. Under the circumstances, the High Court has committed
a very serious error in directing to legalise the unauthorized
occupation and possession made by the original writ petitioners
on payment of market price. Even the other directions issued by
the High Court are not capable of being implemented, namely, to
segregate the vacant land from the residential house and which
can be separated and utilised for earmarked purpose, i.e., school
premises. The unauthorized construction is in such a manner and
even some areas are not used for residential purpose and some
of the area is covered by vegetation and therefore, it is not
possible to segregate and separate the same, which can be used
for school premises. There is no other panchayati land
and/or
other land, which is available, which can be used as school
premises/playground. The adjacent land belongs to some private
persons and they are not ready to part with their land to be used
as school premises/playground. [Para 4.1][18-G-H; 19-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2984-
2985 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2016 in RACW No.
284 of 2016 and dated 12.05.2016 in CWP No. 3167 of 2015 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.
Rakesh K. Mudgal, AAG, Kailash C. Mudgal, Vishwa Pal Singh,
Advs. for the Appellants.
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. SATPAL & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
Surender Deswal, Sahil Garg Narang, V. K. Shukla, Jayanta
Bhattacharyya, Ankit Verma, Ms. Archana Kumari, Ms. Shivangi Singh,
Rahul Gupta, Shashank Sharma, Miss. Saket Gautam, PrithviJoy Das,
Satish Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
dated 12.05.2016 in C.W.P. No. 3167 of 2015 and the order dated
21.10.2016 passed in Review application No. 284 of 2016 in CWP No.
3167 of 2015, the State of Haryana and Ors. have preferred the present
appeals.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:-
2.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the contesting
respondents are in unauthorized possession of the land comprising Khasra
Nos. 61/2 and 62, which belong to the Gram Panchayat. On the
Application of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, a Demarcation was carried
out with regard to Khasra Nos. 61/2 and 62 in which the unauthorized
possession of the respondents - original writ petitioners has been shown.
2.2 Eviction proceedings were initiated on 25.03.2009 by filing
the ejectment application under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village
Common Land (Regulation) Act. Assistant Collector passed the ejectment
order dated 30.08.2011 against the contesting respondents.
2.3 Aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2011, the respondents
preferred an appeal before the Collector, Yamuna Nagar, which came to
be rejected by order dated 02.05.2012. Further appeal before the
Commissioner, Ambala Division also came to be rejected by order dated
04.07.2014.
2.4 The contesting respondents preferred Civil Writ Petition No.
3167 of 2015 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for quashing
the orders dated 30.08.2011, 02.05.2012 and 04.07.2014.
2.5 When the matter came up for preliminary hearing before the
High Court on 23.02.2015, it was stated that the land encroached upon
by the original writ petitioners is part of the school premises and they are
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
15
ready and willing to give equivalent vacant land in exchange, to the Gram
Panchayat out of Khasra No.63, which also adjoins the school
premises and which can, thus, be utilized as a playground of the school.
On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, notices came to be issued by
the High Court in the writ petition.
2.6 It appears that there was a dispute with regard to the total
area under occupation of the original writ petitioners, a fresh demarcation
was directed to be conducted under the supervision of the Local
Commissioner appointed by the Court. Pursuant thereto, the Local
Commissioner submitted his report which established beyond doubt that
the original writ petitioners are under unauthorized possession of the
Gram Panchayat land.
2.7 Faced with the report of the Local Commissioner, the original
writ petitioners reiterated / re-stated before the High Court that the
original writ petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are ready and willing to give the land
to Gram Panchayat equal to double the extent of the encroached land
and other petitioners are willing to pay its market price as may be got
assessed by the Gram Panchayat.
2.8 The High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated
12.05.2016 directed the newly constituted Gram Panchayat to consider
the claim of the individual encroachers on merits and take appropriate
decision. That thereafter, taking into consideration Rule 12 of the Punjab
Village Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964, directed that the Gram
Panchayat may, with the prior approval of the State Government, sell its
non-cultivable land in Shamlat Deh to the inhabitants of the village, who
have constructed their houses on or before 31st March, 2000, provided
that they do not have any residential house and further provided that the
constructed area or an appurtenant area upto a maximum of 200 sq.
yards. The said lands were to be sold at not less than the Collector rate,
i.e., floor rate or market rate, whichever is higher. The aforesaid writ
petition was disposed of with such direction.
2.9 By directing the parties to invoke powers under Rule 12 and
determine the market value of the land to the extent to which it is under
occupation of the original writ petitioners, namely, the land where houses
are constructed and wherever the vacant area can be segregated from
the residential house, it can be separated and utilized for earmarked
purpose, i.e., school premises, the High Court has disposed of the writ
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. SATPAL & ORS.
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
petition in terms of paragraphs 9 to 14, which read as under:-
“(9) In our considered view, the authorities need to invoke powers
under Rule 12 ibid and determine the market value of the land to
the extent it is under occupation of the petitioners, namely, the
land where houses are constructed. Wherever the vacant area
can be segregated from the residential house, it can be separated
and utilized for earmarked purpose i.e. school premises.
(10) As regard to the land where houses have been constructed
by the petitioners, the Gram Panchayat and the Deputy
Commissioner can exercise either of the two options, namely, (i)
to take land double of the occupied/ encroached land from the
petitioners wherever they offer such land provided that the market
value of such land is not less than the market value of the
encroached land; or (ii) the Gram Panchayat may pass resolution
whereupon the Deputy Commissioner shall get the market value
of the land assessed and in that case, the petitioners instead of
giving double of the land shall be liable to pay such value.
(11) Wherever the area under occupation of the petitioner is more
than 200 sq.yards, the Deputy Commissioner may re-ascertain as
to how many family (ies) are residing and whether such families
are to be treated as ‘separate units’ or one unit.
(12) The land to be offered by the petitioners must be in close
vicinity of the school so that it can be utilized for identified
common
purpose.
(13) The needful shall be done within four months from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till then status quo
shall continue to be maintained.
(14) Disposed of accordingly.”
2.10 That the appellants preferred a Review Application being
RA No. 284 of 2016, which was also dismissed vide order dated
21.10.2016. The order passed by the High Court disposing of the main
writ petition in terms of the above and the order dismissing the review
application are the subject matter of the present appeals.
3. Present appeals were heard by this Court on 29.03.2022. This
Court passed the following order:-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
17
“The Assistant Collector, Mustafabad is hereby directed to
submit a report along with Map/Sketch pointing out the exact
measurement of the land bearing Khasra No.61/2 which was
earmarked for the School and the playground. In the report, it
shall also be mentioned the total area of Khasra No.61/2 and the
measurement of the area occupied as School and the area to be
used for playground and that whether in the land other than being
used for School there are any other encroachers or not other than
the respondents herein and the total area occupied by the
respondents herein and whether just adjacent to Khasra Nos.61/
2 and 62, there is any other land available which can be purchased
by the respondents herein and which can be offered to the
Panchayat which can be used for the playground.
The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period
of 10 days from today.
Put up on 19.04.2022.”
3.1 Pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 29.03.2022,
fresh demarcation of the Khasra Nos. 61/2 and 62 of Mauja Magharpur
has been undertaken and a report has been filed before this Court. On a
perusal of the fresh demarcation, computerized sketch and the
encroached site plan, it appears that the building of school is constructed
in 3K-0M being part of Khasra No.61/2(7-16) and the remaining area of
4K-16M and Khasra No. 62 (3K-19M) is also illegally possessed by the
following people:-
Name & Father's Name 
Land 
Jagjit Singh S/o Diwan Chand 
Approx.26 Marla 
Satpal,
Paramjit SS/o Sh. 
Dayal Chand 
Approx.17 Marla 
Surjit 
Singh 
S/o 
Joginder 
Singh, 
Balbir Kaur WD/o Baljit Singh & 
Davinder Kaur Wd/o Manjit Singh 
Approx.26 Marla. 
Kesar Singh S/o Sh. Sant Singh 
Approx.18 Marla 
Jeet Kaur Wd/o SH. Gian Singh 
Approx.7 Marla 
Kanta Rani Wd/o Sujaan Singh 
Approx. 6 Marla 
Marinder Singh S/o Gian Singh 
Approx. 4 Marla 
Total Encroachment Area Approx. 
Approx. 5 Kanal 4 marla
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. SATPAL & ORS.
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
18
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
3.2 It is also found that there is no playground of the school in
Khasra No. 62, nor is any panchayati land abutted nearby Khasra No.
62 and the land which is near the above khasra numbers, the same is
owned by another person and the said persons are not ready to sell their
land. It is found that the said land is at a distance of about 1 km away
from Khasra Nos. 61/2 and 62. Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is
established that the original writ petitioners have encroached upon
approximately 5 kanal and 4 marla of the land belonging to the Gram
Panchayat, which have been earmarked for the school.
3.3 From the fresh sketch/map, it can be seen that the petitioners
have encroached upon more than 200 sq.yds. and the High Court has
directed to determine the market value of the land, which is under
occupation of the original writ petitioners, namely, the land where houses
are constructed. The High Court has also passed an order that wherever
the vacant area can be segregated from the residential house, it can be
separated and utilized for earmarked purpose, i.e., school premises.
3.4 From the map and sketch, we are of the opinion that the
directions issued by the High Court are not capable of being implemented.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
and considering the orders passed by all the authorities below and the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and even as per
the fresh
demarcation, it cannot be disputed that the original writ
petitioners are in illegal and unauthorized occupation of the Gram
Panchayat land to the extent of 5 kanal and 4 marla out of 11 kanals and
15 marla reserved for the purpose of the school. As observed hereinabove,
there is no playground at all. The school is surrounded by the unauthorized
construction made by the original writ petitioners. Therefore, the
unauthorized occupation and possession of the land, which is reserved
for the school and the playground, cannot be directed to be legalized.
There cannot be any school without playground. Even the students, who
study in such a school are entitled to a good environment.
4.1 Under the circumstances, the High Court has committed a
very serious error in directing to legalise the unauthorized occupation
and possession made by the original writ petitioners on payment of market
price. Even the other directions issued by the High Court are not capable
of being implemented, namely, to segregate the vacant land from the
residential house and which can be separated and utilised for earmarked
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
19
purpose, i.e., school premises. The unauthorized construction is in such
a manner and even some areas are not used for residential purpose and
some of the area is covered by vegetation and therefore, it is not possible
to segregate and separate the same, which can be used for school
premises. There is no other panchayati land and/or other land, which is
available, which can be used as school premises / playground. The
adjacent land belongs to some private persons and they are not ready to
part with their land to be used as school premises / playground.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and the directions
issued (reproduced hereinabove) directing to legalise the unauthorized
occupation and possession made by the original writ petitioners on the
land, which is earmarked for school premises / playground is unsustainable
and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly
quashed and set aside. However, the original writ petitioners are granted
12 months’ time to vacate the land, which is occupied by them
unauthorizedly and if within one year from today, they do not vacate the
lands in question, the appropriate authority is directed to remove their
unauthorized and illegal occupation and possession.
With this, the present appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.
Ankit
Gyan
Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri and Mahendra Yadav, LCRAs)
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. SATPAL & ORS.
[M. R. SHAH, J.]