Partly allowed

Om Parkash v. State of Haryana Th Principal Secretary to Govt of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Oct 2015CWP/10446/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside a hasty inspection report for alleged violation of natural justice. It directed the Assistant Collector to conduct a demarcation with advance notice within two months to determine factual possession under the 1961 Act and consider purchase rights under the 1965 Rules.

What did the court decide?

Direction to conduct demarcation with notice within two months; maintain status quo regarding possession pending proceedings.

Om Parkash Vs State of Haryana… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.10446 of 2015 Date of Decision: October 13, 2015

Om Parkash

....Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI.

¶8

Present: Mr.Lekh Raj Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Kirti Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr.Jitender Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr.Naveen Singh Panwar, Advocate, for respt. No.7.

¶9

-.-

¶10

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

¶14

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶15

The request sent by Field Kanungo, Ganaur seeking police assistance for purported removal of encroachments from the shamlat deh land in village Shahpur Taga, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat, is the subject-matter of controversy in the instant case.

¶16

[2] It is not necessary to give facts in detail. Suffice to observe that 7^th respondent filed an eviction petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, 'the 1961 Act') as applicable to the State of Haryana, against 17 persons alleging that they have encroached upon the shamlat land which is abadi deh. That application was allowed by the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Ganaur on 27.12.2000 and respondent Nos.1 to 17 in that petition were found to have constructed boundary walls,

¶17

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.10.15 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

[2]

¶19

CWP No.10446 of 2015

¶20

rooms etc. on shamlat deh land.

¶21

[3] The appeal filed against that order was dismissed on 20.02.2003.

¶22

[4] 7^th respondent filed Execution Petition alleging non-compliance of the above-stated eviction order. He finally approached this Court in CWP No.12461 of 2014 for expeditious disposal of the execution proceedings initiated against the private-respondents. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 05.08.2014 with the following directions:-

¶23

“.......It appears in the interest of justice to dispose of this petition with a direction to the Assistant Collector, 1^st Class, Ganaur to expedite the pending proceedings and if the plea taken by the private respondents that they constructed residential houses many years back is found correct, let the recourse under Rule 12(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1965, as applicable to Haryana, be resorted to. In such an event, the market value of the encroached land can be assessed to enable the affected persons to purchase the occupied land in accordance with Rules. However, if there are fresh encroachments, action be taken in accordance with law.....”

¶24

[5] It further appears that Naib Tehsildar, Ganaur prepared a report dated 11.12.2014 (P-4) which was allegedly based upon a joint inspection carried out by the Kanungo and Patwari and as per that report, the petitioner and other private persons were found in possession of shamlat deh land.

¶25

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.10.15 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶26

CWP No.10446 of 2015

¶27

[3]

¶28

[6] For the removal of above-stated encroachments that the Field Kanungo sought police assistance, prompting the petitioner to approach this Court.

¶29

[7] The petitioner's case is that (i) the eviction order passed in the year 2000 has already been executed; (ii) the fresh inspection/demarcation report has been carried out without notice and/or associating him; (iii) No inspection report was supplied to the petitioner and (iv) that his claim under Rule 12(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1965, as applicable to the State of Haryana (for short, 'the 1965 Rules'), as directed by this Court, has not been considered.

¶30

[8] We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

¶31

[9] It does appear that the authorities have taken the impugned action in haste, may be under the threat of contempt of order dated 05.08.2014 passed by this Court. In this process, they have failed to observe the principles of natural justice as well.

¶32

[10] The question whether the petitioner or other encroachers are still in physical possession of shamlat land is essentially a factual issue which has to be determined by the Assistant Collector, 1^st Grade or any other Authority by carrying out demarcation with advance notice to both the parties and the Gram Panchayat. Let the needful be done in this regard within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶33

[11] If the petitioner or other residents of the village are found to be in possession of the shamlat deh land and if they are willing to purchase such non-cultivable land in terms

¶34

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.10.15 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶35

CWP No.10446 of 2015 [4]

¶36

of Rule 12(4) of the 1965 Rules, their request shall be considered in the light of the judgment of this Court dated 17.09.2015 passed in CWP No.13334 of 2014 (Ram Chander versus Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and others), provided that they fulfill the conditions prescribed under the Rules.

¶37

[12] Till such proceedings are undertaken, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo re: possession.

¶38

[13] The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶39

[14] Let a copy of this order be given dasti to Ms.Kirti Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for information and necessary compliance.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

October 13, 2015 [P.B.BAJANTHRI] mohinder JUDGE

¶42

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.10.15 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Om Parkash v. State of Haryana Th Principal Secretary to Govt of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Parkash v. State of Haryana Th Principal Secretary to Govt of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daljit Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Buta Singh Vs Director Rural Dev of Panchayats & Ors.

Jarnail Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Balshinder Singh and Anr. Vs Niranjan Singh

Sewak Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sushil Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.