Allowed

Chhotu v. Collector Cum Deputy Commi. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Jul 2013CWP/15394/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed orders directing the removal of alleged encroachment on a street. The Court held the proceeding lacked proper demarcation and notice. It directed fresh spot demarcation based on revenue records with prior notice to parties before any action is taken.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 9.9.2011 and 20.3.2012 quashed; fresh demarcation directed with prior notice to parties based on revenue records before initiating proceedings.

Chhotu Vs Collector Cum Deputy Commi. and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 15394 of 2012

¶3

Date of Decision: 2.7.2013

Chhotu

... Petitioner

Versus

The Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar and Others

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh, Judge. Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S.Sandhawalia, Judge.

¶10

Present: Mr. S.P.Chahar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. D.Khanna, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶12

Mr. Deepender Ahlawat, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶13

Jasbir Singh, Judge (Oral)

¶14

The petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning order dated 9.9.2011 (Annexure P1) passed by the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Jhajjar ordering him to remove the alleged encroachment on street bearing No. 604. Further challenge has been laid to an order dated 20.3.2012 (Annexure P2) dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order, referred to above.

¶15

At the time of arguments on 27.8.2012, by making reference to document Aks Shajra (Annexure P5) and the photographs (Annexure P6), it was alleged that demarcation of street bearing No. 604 has not been done as per the revenue record. On the above said date, the

¶16

Civil Writ Petition No. 15394 of 2012

¶17

¶18

following order was passed by this Court:-

¶19

“Reply filed on behalf of respondent no.3, in Court today, is taken on record.

¶20

The dispute, in the present case, relates to encroachment of Street No. 604, situated within the Sabha Area of Gram Panchayat Birohar, Tehsil Matainhail, District Jhajjar.

¶21

Counsel for the parties agree that as demarcations already made may not be entirely correct and relevant, it would be appropriate to direct the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Matainhail, District Jhajjar, to carry out fresh demarcation.

¶22

In view of consensus between counsel for the parties, we direct the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Matainhail, to demarcate Street No. 604, of village Birohar, Tehsil Matainhail, District Jhajjar, afresh on the basis of the “Akshajra, Muisavi and the Field Book” and submit a report before this Court about persons in illegal possession of Street No. 604. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade shall issue notice to all parties concerned before carrying out fresh demarcation. The needful shall be done within one month,.

¶23

A copy of this order be handed over to Mr. D. Khanna, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for ensuring compliance.

¶24

Adjourned to 17.10.2012.

¶25

Civil Writ Petition No. 15394 of 2012

¶26

¶27

Parties shall maintain status-quo till further orders.” Thereafter, it appears that demarcation has been done at the spot by the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Jhajjar on 13.10.2012, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure R1.

¶28

We have gone through the Demarcation Report dated 13.10.2012. It does not reflect as to whether any of the documents mentioned in the order dated 27.8.2012 i.e. “Aks Shajra, Musavi and the Field Book” were perused and noticed by the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Jhajjar at the time when demarcation was done. As per the Aks Shajra, street No. 604 runs straight. However, if we look into the photographs (Annexure P6) it appears that respondent No.3-Satpal has extended his construction right into the street. To the contrary, it is alleged by respondent No.3 that the encroachment on the street has been done by petitioner-Chhotu.

¶29

We have gone through the order (Annexure P1) which appears to have been passed without looking into the revenue record and the position existing at the spot. The petitioner has been directed to remove unauthorized construction on the basis of an order passed on 24.2.2010 (Annexure P3). In those proceedings, the petitioner was not a party. In appeal also, the Appellate Court has passed a non-speaking order. After noting down the arguments advanced by both the parties and facts of the case, impugned order has been passed in a cryptic manner.

¶30

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow this writ petition and the orders dated 9.9.2011 (Annexure P1) and

¶31

Civil Writ Petition No. 15394 of 2012

¶32

¶33

dated 20.3.2012 (Annexure P2) are quashed. The matter is referred to the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Jhajjar with a direction that demarcation be got done at the spot to locate area of the street bearing No.604. The demarcation be done after making reference to Aks Shajra, Musavi and the Field Book. Before making any demarcation, notice be issued to both the parties. After demarcation, if it is found that any of the parties or any other individual is in an unauthorized occupation of the land reserved for street, proceedings be initiated against the said person.

¶34

(Jasbir Singh) Judge

¶35

(G.S.Sandhawalia) Judge

¶36

July 2, 2013 “DK”

Chhotu v. Collector Cum Deputy Commi. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotu v. Collector Cum Deputy Commi. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalita Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Smt Suman Vs Om Parkash

Lakhvir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

State of Haryana Vs Jitender etc.

Amritpal Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Manoj @ Panu Vs State of Haryana and Others