Karan Singh and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

U nder challenge in the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of C onstitution of India, are impug n ed orders dated January 04, 2019 passed by Assistant Collector First Cl a ss, Kanina-respondent No.4 (Annexure P -4), February 24, 2020 p assed by the Collector, Mahendergar h , Narnaul- respondent No.3 ( A nnexure P-6) and October 18, 2024 pa s sed by the Commissioner, Gu r ugram Division, Gurugramrespondent No.2 (Annexure P-8). 2. V ide the impugned orders pass e d by respondents No.2 to 4 under Punjab Village Common Land (Regul a tion) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “1961 Act”), the petitioner s were directed to be evicted on the basis o f a demarcation report dated D ecember 28, 2017. It is the case of the p e titioners that the measurement was done by the authorities concerned b y relying on D.G.P.S machine a n d the calculations arrived at by the autho r ities were without any applicat i on of mind or without being SHALINI BHATIA provided an y opportunity of hearing vis-à- v is the calculations in Local 2025.05.09 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Page 1 of 8

¶13

Page 1 of 8

¶14

CWP No.2731 of 2025 (O&M)

¶15

Commission e r’s report. Therefore, the i m pugned orders should be quashed. Th e petitioners also prayed for a n interim stay against the demolition o f their pucca constructed house during the pendency of writ petition.

¶16

T he Gram Panchayat Nauta n a, Tehsil Kanina, District Mahendragar h through the Sarpanch filed a p plication under Section 7 of the 1961 Act for eviction of petitioners from the pucca constructed house done on the g air mumkin rasta belonging to t h e Panchayat.

¶17

I t is the case of Gram Panch a yat that a path in Khewat No.410 Khatauni No.489 was under owner s hip of the Gram Panchayat and the rasta thereon, is used for incoming a nd outgoing of people, their tractors, cam e l carts etc. Petitioner No.1 ha s built a permanent house of East-11” We s t-11”, South-16”6’, North 16”6’ admeasuring an area of 410 square feet a nd petitioner No.2 has built a concrete house on East-11’, West-22”, S o uth-20”, North 19”6’ admeas u ring an area of 432 square feet, illegally / unauthorisedly on the rasta.

¶18

N otice was given for removing t h e illegal construction by the respondents. T he petitioners were summoned as per rules. The petitioners’ advocate wa s given an opportunity to file re p ly but no reply was filed on behalf of th e petitioners. Thereafter, the ar g uments of the parties were heard. A m e asurement report in File N o .93/RT/Measurement dated December 2 8 , 2017 done by the Halqa Gird a war Dhanonda was brought on record. Fr o m the said report, it transpired that petitioner No.1 illegally occupied 41 0 square feet area and had cons t ructed a pucca house of 11” in the east, 2 0 ” in South, 13”6’ in North. The rest of plot was occupied by petitioner N o.2. The advocate for peti t ioner No.2 contested the proceedings b y filing written arguments on h i s behalf though no reply was SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.09 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Page 2 of 8

¶19

Page 2 of 8

¶20

CWP No.2731 of 2025 (O&M)

¶21

filed. It was contended in the written argu m ents that the measurement report in file No.93/RT/Measurement dated J anuary 12, 2018 (hereinafter referred to a s “2018 report”) was an incorre c t one as the local Girdawar did not appe a r to prove the same. It was f urther contended before the learned Assi s tant Collector that none of the witnesses appeared to prove the Spot Ins p ection Report and the signatu r e of the witness Raj Kumar Putrohkar in the said report, was fake beca u se the witness was illiterate and could no t sign.

¶22

A s per 2018 report, the concrete house of petitioner No.2 was of a length o f 11” in East, 11” in West, 20” in South and 19”6’ in North admeasuring an area of 432 square feet. It was submitted on behalf of petitioner No.2 that there was no encroachm e nt on the path as alleged by the Gram Pa n chayat as vehicles are plying o n the same. Furthermore, it was contend e d that the witnesses who wer e shown to be present in the 2018 report w ere not present during the spot inspection and the signatures of witnesses, namely, Narender Kumar and U med Singh, Chowkidar were obtained late r . It was also urged on behalf o f the petitioner No.2 that a civil case w as filed by him against th e Gram Panchayat, before G.A.C.J.S.D, Kanina, and a status-quo order was passed therein. Therefore, th e possession of the petitioner N o .2 could not be disturbed in proceedings u nder Section 7 of the 1961 Act. 7. T he learned Assistant Collecto r -respondent No.4 took into consideratio n the submissions made by lear n ed advocates for the parties, written argu m ents along with the record p e rtaining to Section 7 of the 1961 Act. U p on hearing learned advocates and perusing the record, he was of the o p inion that a civil case was fil e d by petitioner No.2 which concerned an area in Khewat No.265 Khatau n i No.343 Khasra No.240/1/2 SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.09 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Page 3 of 8

¶23

Page 3 of 8

¶24

CWP No.2731 of 2025 (O&M)

¶25

(1-6). Howe v er, from the measurement rep o rt dated December 28, 2017 submitted by Girdawar Halqa, it appeared th a t the disputed area of land is situated in j e r khewat No.410 Khatauni N o .489, jer Khasra No.240/2. Relying on t h e measurement report of Girda w ar Halqa, learned Assistant Collector-res p ondent No.4 passed orders of eviction against the petitioners fr o m illegal occupation of the Pa n chayat land within a period of 30 days, v i de impugned order dated Janua r y 04, 2019. 8. A n appeal was instituted by th e petitioners on January 23, 2019, being n umbered 53/VCL. It was argue d on behalf of petitioner No.1 that he had b u ilt his house on his own land i n khasra No.245 admeasuring 07 marla in gair mumkin abadi and no t on Panchayat rasta land. Therefore, re l iance on the measurement rep o rt dated December 28, 2017 was comple t ely erroneous. Since the Sa r panch of Gram Panchayat nurtured a g r udge against the appellants, th e refore, a false and frivolous case had bee n instituted against them. 9. I t was contended on behalf of p e titioner No.2 that as per the contention o f Gram Panchayat, area of 217 . 25 square feet was illegally occupied, the r efore, question of petitioner N o .2 occupying 432 square feet did not or co u ld not arise. The house of app e llants was constructed 60-70 years ago a n d there was nothing on record to show that the said constructions were illegal.

¶26

A fter hearing the contentions o f learned counsel for parties and examini n g the documents on record, the Collector-respondent No.3 held that the p etitioners were rightly evicted f rom the disputed land on the basis of mea s urement report dated Decemb e r 28, 2017. Therefore, there was no need f or any interference with the ord e r dated January 04, 2019.

¶27

SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.09 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶28

Page 4 of 8

¶29

CWP No.2731 of 2025 (O&M)

¶30

A revision petition challenging the order under appeal was instituted on June 23, 2020. The Commis s ioner Gurugram-respondent No.2 vide o r der dated October 18, 2024 dismissed the said revision petition. It w as submitted that the petition e rs-revisionists had inherited Khasra No.2 4 5, 240/2 and 242 by way of i n heritance. The constructions were made o n their own land and not on the l and of Gram Panchayat. The measurement could not have been done by the Commissioner when the crop was sta n ding in the area. The petition e rs were not allowed to raise proper object i ons on the measurement report dated December 28, 2017 by the Assistan t Collector. The petitioners w e re being evicted from their pucca constr u ctions due to electoral rivalr y between the Sarpanch of Gram Panch a yat and the family member s of the petitioners. It was recorded in t h e order passed by the Commi s sioner-respondent No.2 that despite sever a l opportunities being granted t o the petitioners they did not file their rep l y before the Assistant Collect o r-respondent No.4. Written arguments w ere presented on behalf of G r am Panchayat and also the petitioner N o .2 and upon considering w r itten and oral arguments, necessary or d er of eviction was passed by re s pondent No.4 on January 04, 2019 and the same was upheld by respondent No.3 on February 24, 2020. 12. O n perusal of record, responde n t No.2-Commissioner came to the findin g that land in question was a ga i r mumkin rasta belonging to Gram Panch a yat, Nautana. The demarcatio n report dated December 28, 2017 of Halqa Girdawar also clearly showed illegal construction made by the petitione r s. Petitioner No.1 claimed tha t khasra No.245 belonged to him and peti t ioner No.2 claimed that khasr a No.240/2 (0-4) was a land belonging to Gram Panchayat on which g a ir mumkin rasta had been constructed. T herefore, any illegal constructi o n on the said rasta had to be SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.09 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Page 5 of 8

¶31

Page 5 of 8

¶32

CWP No.2731 of 2025 (O&M)

¶33

removed. Th e refore, respondent No.2 found that no error was committed vide impugn e d orders passed by responden t s No.3 and 4 and dismissed the appeal fil e d by the petitioners-revisionist s . 13. T his Court has heard learned c o unsel for the petitioners and perused the m aterial on record. 14. I t is apparent that despite sever a l opportunities of filing their replies befor e respondent No.4, the petitio n ers deliberately failed and neglected to d o so. The petitioners despite b eing given opportunities did not challeng e the Report dated December 28, 2017. In the circumstances, the petitione r s’ contention that the Assistant Collector did not give them an opportunity to challenge the report is without any basis. Learned Assistant Collector-respondent No.4 consi d ered the written arguments submitted b y Gram Panchayat and also p e titioner No.2 and also the documents a v ailable on record, before comi n g to the finding that illegal constructions have been made by the petit i oners on the land of Gram Panchayat a n d therefore, eviction order was required to be passed under Section 7 of t h e 1961 Act. Accordingly, the s a me was passed. 15. O nce an opportunity of filing of reply has been granted to the petitioners a n d they deliberately chose not t o do so, then they cannot be permitted to t urn around and contend that th e impugned orders have been passed in br e ach of principles of natural justice, without been given an opportunity o f hearing. The report of th e halqa Patwari not being challenged, a l l the findings made therein rem a in uncontroverted. 16. W hen it is specific contenti o n of the petitioners that measurement was not done in their presenc e then how an argument that the witnesses were not present at the time of s urvey has been raised by the petitioners, i s perplexing to the mind of thi s Court. No explanation has

¶34

SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.09 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶35

Page 6 of 8

¶36

CWP No.2731 of 2025 (O&M)

¶37

been provide d as to how the petitioners bec a me aware of the fact that at the time of s u rvey being conducted, the wi t nesses were not present and their signatu r es were obtained later by t h e official concerned. The petitioners h a ve sought to raise seriously disputed questions of facts which canno t be entertained in a writ petitio n . A beneficial reference may be made to Apex Court judgment in “Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam and others” 2021 (20) SCC 454 , fo r the aforesaid proposition. Relevant extract thereof is reproduced herein a fter:

¶38

“ xxx 2 6. It is well settled that th e High Court exercising its e xtraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the C onstitution of India, does n o t adjudicate hotly disputed q uestions of facts. It is not fo r the High Court to make a c omparative assessment of con fl icting technical reports and d ecide which one is acceptable. X xx”

¶39

T he petitioners also failed to sh o w as to why the report dated December 2 8 , 2017 of Halqa Girdawar sh o uld not be accepted in the absence of a n y allegation of capriciousness o r mala fide intention against the official c oncerned. From the facts of t h e case, it is clear that the contention o f petitioner No.2 is that he has i n herited Khasra No.240/1 and 242. A civil c ase was filed by petitioner No. 2 and order of status-quo was obtained in r e spect of Khasra No.240/1/2 (1- 6 ) and 242 (0-14). However, the Gram Pa n chayat’s land is situated at K h asra No.240/2 on which the allegation o f illegal construction by the petitioners was proved in proceedings u nder Section 7 of the Act. 18. I n the light of aforesaid disc u ssion, this Court finds no infirmity in t h e impugned orders dated Janu a ry 04, 2019 (Annexure P-4), February 24, 2020 (Annexure P-6) and Octo b er 18, 2024 (Annexure P-8)