The Gram Panchayat challenged an impugned order of the Collector dismissing its claim of unauthorized occupation of a public street by respondents. The Court held that the factual finding of the Collector must stand and disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. This is procedurally thin.
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.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16739 OF 2011 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 06, 2012 Gram Panchayat Anwli, Tehsil Gohana, Distt. Sonepat
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State.
Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The Gram Panchayat has approached this Court to allege that respondents herein have encroached upon the public street. Demarcation report of the public street bearing Khasra No.493, according to the Gram Panchayat, would establish that respondent Nos.3 and 4 had caused consistent and grave inconvenience to the residents of the village. On the basis of this demarcation report, the order of ejectment of respondent Nos.3 and 4 was passed on 31.7.2001. Copy of the same is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-2. It is alleged that with the change of guards, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have again unauthorisedly possessed the area of the street and they have allegedly raised construction also on
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16739 OF 2011 :{ 2 }:
26.3.2007.
Reference is made to another demarcation (Annexure P- 4), showing that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have again unauthorisedly taken possession of the part of public street. As per the Panchayat, this unauthorised possession of the respondents herein leads to bad example in the village. Somewhere around on 14.12.2010, the Panchayat again got the public street demarcated. Copy of the demarcation report is on record as Annexure P-6. This, according to counsel for the petitioner, would show that the respondents are in unauthorised possession of the public street. For this, an approach was made before the Collector, who vide impugned order (Annexure P-7), has found that the respondents herein have not unauthorisedly occupied any street and the area of the street earlier unauthorisedly occupied was got removed on 31.7.2001. Against this order, the petitioner-Gram Panchayat has filed this petition.
Since the petitioner has a remedy of appeal against the order passed by the Collector, he may invoke the said remedy, if so advised. Otherwise, as a matter of fact, the Collector has found that there is no unauthorised possession on the part of the respondents. This Court can not enter into factual controversy to come to any different finding of facts. The petitioner-Gram Panchayat is relegated to its remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order, if it still feels aggrieved against the order passed by the Collector.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE
November 06, 2012 khurmi
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can intervene factually when the Collector has found no unauthorized occupation and the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal.
Gram Panchayat Anwli
State of Haryana
Respondent Nos.3 and 4
Ranjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
