Quashed

Gram Panchyat v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC16 May 2024CWP/14783/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Gram Panchayat challenged concurrent dismissal of its eviction petition against encroachments on open spaces in the abadi deh. The High Court held a valid demarcation report was absent and unproven, quashed the dismissal orders, and remanded to the Assistant Collector with directions to appoint a revenue officer and decide within four months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Gram Panchyat Vs State of Haryana and Others — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CWP-14783-1998 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

105

¶5

CWP-14783-1998 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.05.2024

¶6

Gram Panchayat, Fatehpur Tagga

¶7

..... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Haryana and others

¶10

..... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA

¶12

Present: Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG, Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.

¶14

Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶15

¶16

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)

¶17

The petitioner-Gram Panchayat becomes aggrieved from the concurrently made dismissal orders on a petition cast under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1961).

¶18

Succinctly, petitioner-Gram Panchayat had claimed the eviction

¶19

of the respondents in the said petition, from the disputed Khasra numbers,

¶20

SATYAWAN 2024.05.21 04:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP-14783-1998 (O&M) 2

¶22

thus, on the ground that they had raised the construction on the gairmumkin passage existing inside the abadi. Therefore, since the said gairmumkin passage was an open space or plot inside the abadi deh, and, as such in terms of provisions carried under Section 2(g)(4A) of the Act of 1961, provisions whereof become extracted hereinafter, and, which became introduced in the said Act through an amendment becoming made in the year 1973. Resultantly, the said open spaces or vacant plots situated in abadi deh of Gorah deh , not owned by any person, do visibly thereby fall within the definition of Shamlat deh .

¶23

' 2(g)(4A) of the Act of 1961- "shamilat deh" includes :-

¶24

(4a) vacant land or plot situate in abadi deh or gorah

¶25

deh not owned by any person”

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents before this Court has vehemently argued, while making an allusion to the jamabandi relating to the disputed khasra numbers, whereins, the nomenclature Gait Abadi exists, and therebys submits that since in terms of Section 2(g)(6) of the Act of 1961, provisions whereof become extracted hereinafter, thus Gitwar or gait became excluded from the definition of Shamlat deh . Therebys, he submits that the concurrently made dismissal orders on the eviction petition rather are valid.

¶27

However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the concurrently made dismissal verdicts on the petition cast under Section 7 of the Act of 1961, which became laid by the Gram Panchayat concerned, before the Assistant Collector, require theirs becoming quashed and set

¶28

SATYAWAN 2024.05.21 04:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CWP-14783-1998 (O&M) 3

¶30

aside. Moreover, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, an order of remand is required to be made to the Assistant Collector concerned.

¶31

The reasons for drawing the above conclusion becomes sparked from the factum, that though the learned counsel for the respondent, has contended, that since in one of the columns of the jamabandi (Annexure P- 2), the description(s) of gait becomes assigned to the suit lands, and, therebys on application thereto of the exclusionary clause (supra), the same becomes excluded from the definition of shamlat deh . Therefore, he argues very vehemently before this Court that the dismissal verdict(s) passed on the eviction petition are required to be upheld. However, the said submission is bereft of any rigor and is also made without the counsel for the petitioner and also for the private respondent, being unmindful of the factum, that in the eviction petition, rather the Gram Panchayat concerned, had claimed the eviction of the private respondents, on the ground, that some encroachment(s) were made by the private respondent, upon, certain open spaces or plots skirting the said created abadi by the private respondents, upon, lands designated in Annexure P-2, as Abadi deh or Toshi abadi .

¶32

Furthermore, even all the statutory authorities appear to be over focusing upon the application of the said exclusionary clause to gait, whereas the lis which was laid before the Assistant Collector concerned by the Gram Panchayat contrarily related to the private respondents raising unauthorised construction(s) on the open spaces or plots, within the abadi deh and which are as stated (supra) became included within the definition of

¶33

SATYAWAN 2024.05.21 04:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

CWP-14783-1998 (O&M) 4

¶35

shamlat deh .

¶36

Though, strikingly for setling the above contra claims raised respectively by the petitioner -Gram Panchayat and by the private respondents, but necessarily arose the imperative requirement qua the drawings of a valid drawn demarcation report by the empowered revenue officer, besides also required the same becomes subsequently lawfully proven, thus, by the author of the said demarcation report, through his stepping into the witness box. However, neither there is any reference in the impugned verdicts vis-a-vis the said prepared demarcation report nor the said prepared valid demarcation report became either tendered into evidence nor it became lawfully proven.

¶37

In consequence, for the lack of existence on record of a valid demarcation report, besides for lack of cogent valid proof emerging qua the demarcation report, if any, thereby the respective contra contentions raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the private respondent, thus were not amenable to be decided either respectively in favour of the petitioner Gram Panchayat or in favour of the private respondents. Contrarily, the said infirmity is required to be undone only through this Court after quashing the impugned Annexures, thus, making an order of remand to the Assistant Collector, with a direction upon him to after restoring the lis to its original number, to appoint an empowered revenue officer, who shall draw a valid demarcation report qua the disputed khasra numbers, and, subsequently it shall also be ensured that the author of

¶38

SATYAWAN 2024.05.21 04:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

CWP-14783-1998 (O&M) 5

¶40

the said validly drawn demarcation report, personally tenders the same before him, besides the Assistant Collector shall thereafter ensure that it becomes lawfully proven but only after an opportunity becoming afforded to the aggrieved therefrom to make cross-examination(s) upon the author of the demarcation report. The Assistant Collector is directed to positively decide the remanded lis within a period of four months.

¶41

Disposed of accordingly.

¶42

All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶43

(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE

¶44

(LALIT BATRA) JUDGE

¶45

16.05.2024 Satyawan

¶46

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No 2. Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶47

SATYAWAN 2024.05.21 04:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gram Panchyat v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Gram Panchyat v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Other

Nand Kishore and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Shakuntla Devi & Ors. Vs State of Hry. & Ors.

Saardi Devi and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gram Panchayat Vs Director C/H etc.

Rahul Vs State of Haryana