Partly allowed

Ram Sarup @ Ram Saroop & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Dec 2015CWP/18742/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court upheld modified eviction orders against petitioners found in unauthorized possession of common village land via fresh demarcation. The writ petition succeeded in part, granting liberty to purchase the specific encroached portion if the Gram Panchayat agrees.

What did the court decide?

Eviction order upheld regarding encroached land (18x24 feet); liberty granted to petitioners to apply for purchase of the land from Gram Panchayat if conditions met; status quo for two months.

Ram Sarup @ Ram Saroop & Ors. Vs State of… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.18742 of 2014 Date of Decision: December 15, 2015

¶3

Ram Sarup @ Ram Saroop and others

¶4

....Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

State of Haryana and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

Present: Mr.H.K.Bindra, Advocate, for

¶11

Mr.P.S.Sikand, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Kirti Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr.Rohan Sharma, Advocate, for Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

¶12

-.-

¶13

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

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

¶17

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶18

The petitioners are residents of village Haveli, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. They have laid challenge to the orders dated 28.11.2006, 21.04.2011 and 20.08.2013. Vide the first order dated 28.11.2006, the Gram Panchayat's application filed under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as applicable to the State of Haryana (for short, 'the 1961 Act') was allowed and the petitioners were ordered to be evicted from the land measuring 1.5 kanal and a part of khasra No.58 min situated within the abadi deh. Vide the subsequent orders, petitioners' appeal as well as revision petition were dismissed.

¶19

When this writ petition came up for preliminary hearing on 10.09.2014, the solitary contention raised was that

¶20

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.12.22 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

CWP No.18742 of 2014

¶22

[2]

¶23

the demarcation is required to carried out afresh.

¶24

On 12.05.2015, this Court directed the B.D.P.O. Sadhoura to demarcate the land and re-determine whether the petitioners are in unauthorized possession of the abadi deh land being used for common purposes?

¶25

In deference thereto, the B.D.P.O. Sadhoura has submitted the demarcation report. It is averred that the fresh demarcation was conducted by the Local Commissioner in the presence of both the parties and as per that report, petitioner Nos.1 & 5 have been found in illegal possession of a small part of the land in dispute, i.e., 18x24 feet. The remaining land was found vacant at the spot. The site-plan depicting the encroachment has also been appended.

¶26

Since fresh demarcation has been carried out in the presence of the parties and under the supervision of Local Commissioner, we have no reason to discard that report. Resultant effect is that the writ petition succeeds in part and the impugned orders are modified. Since petitioner Nos.1 & 5 have been found in unauthorized possession of a part of the land in dispute as per the demarcation report of the B.D.P.O., Sadhoura, the impugned eviction orders to the extent of such encroached land are upheld. However, liberty is granted to petitioner Nos.1 & 5 to apply for the purchase of that land from the Gram Panchayat provided that they fulfill the conditions prescribed in Rule 12 (4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 as applicable to the State of Haryana and provided further that the Gram Panchayat also agrees to their request. If such a mutual decision is taken, the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar is directed to forward the proposal to the State Government for

¶27

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.12.22 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

[3]

¶29

CWP No.18742 of 2014

¶30

its necessary approval.

¶31

Ordered accordingly.

¶32

Status-quo re: possession shall be maintained for a period of two months so as to enable the petitioners to apply and the Gram Panchayat to take any decision upon their request.

¶33

Dasti.

¶34

December 15, 2015 [P.B.BAJANTHRI] mohinder JUDGE

¶35

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.12.22 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Ram Sarup @ Ram Saroop & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sarup @ Ram Saroop & Ors. v. State of Haryana & 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

Yadwinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bhajan Singh Vs Director, Land Records of Punjab and Others

Suneeta Sharma Vs Gmada and Ors.

Bhagwan Dass and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gurmail Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajbir Vs State of Haryana & Ors.