Petitioners sought to quash the Commissioner's order setting aside a Collector's eviction order under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. The court upheld the Commissioner's findings that the land, formerly a pond, is needed for public park and latrine facilities.
Petition for quashing the Commissioner's order 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. 18940 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 23, 2011
Narinder Singh and others.
…Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others.
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH.
Present: Mr. J.R. Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. R.S. Ghuman, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
Mr. Amit Bakshi, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 5, 6, 8 to 11.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 22.07.2009 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)), whereby the order of the Collector dated 22.07.2008 (Annexure P/3) passed on petition under Section 7 of the Act has been set aside and the petition of the Gram Panchayat for eviction has been allowed in appeal.
2
CWP No. 18940 of 2009
The brief facts of the present case are that the Gram Panchayat had filed a petition under Section 7 of the Act for eviction of the petitioners from the land consisting of Khasra No. 525 which falls in the abadi of the village Behlolpur, Tehsil and District Mohali. The case set up by the Gram Panchayat was to the effect that the petitioners are in illegal possession of the land which is being used for common purposes as “chowk” and this land is to be used for construction of Park and Latrine and the claim of the petitioners is that the standing possession construction of houses and land is not used for common purposes.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
After perusing the revenue record, the Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the petitioners have failed to produce any document to substantiate their long standing possession over the land nor they have been able to show that they constructed the houses over the land in dispute much earlier. The finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner that earlier there existed a small pond over the land in question. In the said pond, water from the houses of residents of the village used collect. After the construction of new streets and drains in the village, water started falling in another pond through a big drain and this small pond dried up and the people started throwing garbage and also using for cow dung cakes and in due course, raised the boundary walls. The Panchayat and the residents of the village / Mohalla decided that there should be a Park and Latrine for public convenience and this fact too has been admitted by the
3
CWP No. 18940 of 2009
petitioners. The land was earlier used for public purposes and the petitioners also admit that they are ready to vacate the same.
Since, the property in question earlier was a pond and now is to be used for public purposes, we do not find any reason to differ with the finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner after appreciation of evidence on record.
No merits.
Dismissed.
(PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE
November 23, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkd JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Commissioner's finding that the land was previously a pond and is required for public purposes.
Whether the petitioners have validly established long-standing possession over the disputed land.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Narinder Singh and others
State of Punjab
Satish Kumar Mittal
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
