Dismissed¶26

Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jul 2025LPA/1385/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

LPA-1385-2025 (O&M); Punjab and Haryana High Court; decision dated July 21, 2025; bench: Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra (author, oral) and Justice Kuldeep Tiwari; appellant Naresh Kumar (counsel Amit Jain) versus State of Haryana and others. Keywords: Lambardar removal; Gram Sabha land; Khasra No.57; unauthorized possession/encroachment; eviction proceedings against 20 persons but none against respondent No.4; 22 years unblemished service; demarcation dispute; removal 'too harsh'; Single Judge's order upholding respondent No.4 affirmed in effect; appeal dismissed; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; the learned Single Judge's order allowing the writ petition stands, and pending application(s) stand disposed of accordingly. ¶26

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the learned Single Judge's order allowing the writ petition stands, and pending application(s) stand disposed of accordingly.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Single Judge erred in interfering with the orders removing respondent No.4 from the post of Lambardar (as contended by the appellant, alleging an admission of guilt). +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

This Court is in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge; consequently, the letters patent appeal is dismissed.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Mere issuance of notice against respondent No.4 and an observation that he had himself removed the unauthorized possession would not lead to an inference that there was, in fact, any conscious encroachment upon Gram Sabha land; it is quite possible there may have been an issue of demarcation since respondent No.4 owned some land in the same Khasra.

¶21

Key takeaways

Since the appellant merely alleged encroachment of 15 or 16 sq yards in respect of which no proceedings were ultimately undertaken to remove the encroachment, it would be too harsh to allow respondent No.4 to be removed from service on such ground.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeal (LPA-1385-2025 O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided orally on July 21, 2025 by Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. (with Kuldeep Tiwari, J.) — dismissed. The appeal challenged the learned Single Judge's order setting aside the removal of respondent No.4 from the post of Lambardar, who was alleged to be in unauthorized possession over certain land of Khasra No.57. Holding: mere issuance of notice against respondent No.4 and an observation that he had himself removed the unauthorized possession does not establish conscious encroachment upon Gram Sabha land, particularly when respondent No.4 owned land in the same Khasra (possible demarcation dispute), no order of eviction was passed against him despite eviction orders against 20 other persons, and he had served for 22 years without blemish; removal from service on such a ground would be 'too harsh'. The Division Bench expressed respectful agreement with the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal; pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

140

¶3

LPA-1385-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : July 21, 2025

NARESH KUMAR

-APPELLANT

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

¶8

-RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

¶10

Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

¶12

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

This letters patent appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge interfering with the orders passed against the respondent No.4 removing him from the post of Lambardar. The allegation, which led to removal of the respondent No.4 is that he was found in unauthorized possession over certain land of Khasra No.57.

¶14

The learned Single Judge has examined the facts of the case and has found that the respondent No.4 was performing his duties for the last 22 years and there has never been any complaint against him of the like nature. It has also been found that the respondent No.4 was otherwise having land in Plot No.57 and there was apparently some dispute of demarcation. It has also been noticed that though eviction proceedings were initiated and had ultimately led to orders of eviction passed against 20 other

¶15

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.07.22 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶16

LPA-1385-2025 (O&M)

¶17

¶18

persons, but no such order of eviction was passed against the respondent No.4. With these findings, the writ petition has been allowed.

¶19

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the proceedings of eviction of the respondent No.4 were initiated but ultimately no orders were passed only because the unauthorized encroachment was removed by the respondent No.4 himself. It is sought to be contended that there was, in fact, an admission of guilt by the respondent No.4 and in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge has erred in interfering with the orders.

¶20

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material.

¶21

The facts, as have been recorded by the learned Single Judge and have been noticed above, are not in dispute. It is admitted to the appellant that for the last 22 years, the respondent No.4 has been working without any blemish. No orders of eviction have been passed against the respondent No.4 by any competent authority. Mere issuance of notice against the respondent No.4 and an observation that he had himself removed the unauthorized possession would not lead to an inference that there was, in fact, any conscious encroachment upon Gram Sabha land. It is quite possible that there may have been an issue of demarcation inasmuch as the respondent No.4 did own some land in the same Khasra. Merely because the appellant alleged that he had encroached only upon 15 or 16 sq yards land, in respect of which no proceedings were ultimately undertaken to remove his encroachment, it would be too harsh in the day to allow the respondent No.4 to be removed from service on such ground. This Court is in respectful

¶22

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.07.22 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶23

¶24

LPA-1385-2025 (O&M)

¶25

agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

¶26