Dismissed

Satbir Singh v. Collector Rohtak and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Feb 2013CWP/19430/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging eviction orders passed under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The Court held that the petitioner failed to file objections to the demarcation report before the Assistant Collector and that summary proceedings do not warrant interference.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 30.8.1995 and 9.7.1996 were upheld; the writ petition was dismissed without orders as to costs.

Satbir Singh Vs Collector Rohtak and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.19430 of 1996 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.19430 of 1996 Date of Decision: 14.2.2013

Satbir Singh

..Petitioner

Versus

The Collector, Rohtak, District Rohtak and others ..Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

¶9

Present: Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. D.Khanna, Addl.Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶11

Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶12

RAJIVE BHALLA, J

¶13

The petitioner challenges orders dated 30.8.1995 and 9.7.1996 passed by the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Jhajjar and the Collector, Rohtak, District Rohtak, directing his eviction from the land in dispute and dismissing his appeal.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the eviction order was passed after receipt of a demarcation report, without allowing the petitioner, to lead any further evidence. The statement made by the petitioner that the land may be demarcated, has been construed as his statement, accepting the demarcation report. It is further submitted that as a question of ownership of the land, in dispute arises, the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Jhajjar, may be directed to

¶15

Civil Writ Petition No.19430 of 1996 2

¶16

convert the application for eviction, into a petition for deciding the question of title.

¶17

Counsel for contesting respondent no. 3 submits that as the petitioner is in unauthorised possession of part of a path, the writ petition should be dismissed. The petitioner's plea that he was not allowed to file objections to the demarcation report, is irrelevant as it was for the petitioner to file objections to challenge the demarcation report. The petitioner, however, did not file any objection.

¶18

We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and find no reason to issue the writ as prayed or to hold that the impugned orders suffer from any error of fact or of law as would require interference.

¶19

The Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as the “1961 Act”) for eviction of the petitioner and others. The Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, ordered demarcation and after receipt of the report, dated 11.4.1995, prepared by the Naib Tehsildar, held that as the petitioner is in occupation of a path, he is liable to be evicted. An appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. A perusal of the demarcation report, as referred to in the order passed by the Collector, Rohtak, reveals that the petitioner is in illegal possession of land area measuring 17x 6½ =12', which is part of path no.191. The petitioner's plea that he was not granted an opportunity to lead evidence against the demarcation report, in our considered opinion, cannot be accepted as it was for the petitioner to raise and/or file

¶20

Civil Writ Petition No.19430 of 1996 3

¶21

objections before the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade to challenge the demarcation report. The petitioner did not file any objection. Even otherwise, proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 Act, are summary in nature and as the petitioner was found in illegal possession of part of a path, the impugned orders do not call for interference. The writ petition is dismissed but with no orders as to costs.

¶22

( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE

¶23

14.2.2013 ( REKHA MITTAL ) VK JUDGE

Satbir Singh v. Collector Rohtak and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satbir Singh v. Collector Rohtak and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangat Ram and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Naib Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jasbir Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bakshish Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gram Panchyat Jant Vs Commissioner Gurgaon Circle etc.

Malkiat Singh & Ors. Vs Gram Panchayat & Ors.