In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged orders of eviction passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, claiming encroachment on a village thoroughfare. The High Court dismissed the petition.
The writ petition was found to have no merit and was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. NO.188 of 2004
DATE OF DECISION:09.11.2006
Parbhu
.....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NIRMAL YADAV
Present: Mr.R.D. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.R.S.Kundu, Addl.A.G., Haryana Mr.N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate
..
JUDGMENT :
Gram Panchayat of village Mohammadpur Hamid Khan, Tehsil Narnaul, filed an application under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, for eviction of the present petitioner on the ground that he had encroached upon an area measuring 0 Kanal – 18 Marlas which was a gair mumkin rasta sar-eaam. The Assistant Collector, Narnaul, himself visited the spot and got the measurement done from Halqa Kanungo and the Revenue Patwari in the presence of the petitioner and found that the earlier report of the Local Commissioner, which held the petitioner to have encroached upon the thoroughfare was correct and accordingly, ordered the eviction of the petitioner.
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Assistant Collector before the Collector who also upheld the aforementioned order. It is against
C.W.P. NO.188 of 2004
- 2 -
these orders the present writ petition has been filed. Counsel for the petitioner contends that proper demarcation was not done before holding that the petitioner has encroached upon any area, which falls in rasta.
A perusal of the impugned orders clearly shows that Halqa Kanungo had been appointed as Local Commissioner. He vide his report dated 17.12.2002 found that the petitioner has encroached upon the land by constructing wall and house in the area measuring 121 square feet and 40 square feet of passage No.205. A spot inspection was also done by the Assistant Collector, Narnaul himself in the presence of the petitioner and the respondents and illegal possession of the petitioner was found on the land in question.
In view of the above, as the petitioner has encroached upon the public 'rasta', which is used by the inhabitants of the village, he has rightly been ordered to be evicted from the same. We find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE
November 09, 2006 ( NIRMAL YADAV ) pc JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether proper demarcation was done before holding that the petitioner had encroached upon a public thoroughfare.
Whether the petitioner was rightly ordered to be evicted from the encroached public land.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Parbhu
State of Haryana
Ashutosh Mohunta
Nirmal Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
