208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3246-1998 (O&M) Reserved on : 21.05.2026 Date of Decision : 29.05.2026 Judgment Uploaded on : 29.05.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced : Full Sat Pal & Anr ... Petitioner(s) Versus Mahabir Singh & Ors ... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI Present : Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG Haryana for respondent Nos.3 & 4. ALKA SARIN, J. 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the impugned orders dated 09.10.1996 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Bahadurgarh and 21.11.1997 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Collector, Jhajjar. 2. Briefly the facts relevant to the present lis are that respondent No.1 herein filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1961 Act’) averring therein that in Village Majri, there is a shamlat chowk shown in the site plan which is owned by the Gram Panchayat and situated in the abadi. It YOGESH SHARMA 2026.05.29 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh CWP-3246-1998 (O&M) 2 was further alleged that the petitioners herein had constructed a wall shown as mark DC in the site plan having 5 ft height and 39 ft. length. It was further averred that the said wall was constructed illegally. It was further the case set up that the shamlat chowk was being used by the villagers for parking their carts, tractors and for marriage purposes and was also used as a passage by the villagers. The villagers requested the Sarpanch a number of times to get the illegal construction removed but no action was taken. 3. On notice, the petitioners herein contested the petition under Section 7 of the 1961 Act and filed their joint written statement wherein it was averred that the chowk never remained shamlat and infact was part of the angan of the petitioners herein. It was further the stand taken that they had not raised any illegal construction and further that the land did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. 4. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Bahadurgarh vide order dated 09.10.1996 (Annexure P-1) held that a site plan had been prepared in 1984 by the Patwari Halqa, which was signed by the other villagers and was issued by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Bahadurgarh. As per the above site plan, the chowk in dispute was shown as a shamlat chowk and was being used for common purposes. Even the witness of the petitioners herein - RW3 - admitted that it was a chowk. It was further held that no plea of ownership was raised by the petitioners herein, hence, vide the order dated 09.10.1996 (Annexure P-1), the petitioners were ordered to be ejected from the land in dispute. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred before the Collector, Jhajjar which appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 21.11.1997 (Annexure P-2). Hence, the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the land is not shamlat land and the same was a part of the angan of the land belonging to the petitioners and that the impugned orders were illegal and arbitrary. 6. Per contra the learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well as the YOGESH SHARMA 2026.05.29 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh CWP-3246-1998 (O&M) 3 learned State counsel have contended that as per the site plan of 1984, the land was shown as shamlat and further that there was no title which is claimed by the petitioners herein. Infact, the witness of the petitioners himself admitted the land in question to being a chowk. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. In the present case it has come on record that the land in dispute was a shamlat chowk. RW3, who is the witness of the petitioners, admitted that the chowk was shamlat and was owned by the Gram Panchayat. A finding was also returned that the land of the petitioners was adjacent to the land in question. Admittedly, the petitioners herein did not raise the question of title, rather it is an admitted case of the petitioners herein that the disputed land forms a part of the angan of the petitioners. In the absence of any cogent evidence having been led by the petitioners to show their ownership over the land in dispute, no fault can be found with the impugned orders dated 09.10.1996 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Bahadurgarh and 21.11.1997 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Collector, Jhajjar. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. ( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE 29.05.2026 Yogesh Sharma ( RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO YOGESH SHARMA 2026.05.29 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh