IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22293 of 2025 Date of Decision: August 13, 2025 Ishwar Singh ..... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram, Haryana & others ..... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA PRESENT: - Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra “Sirsa”, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Mago, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. SUBHAS MEHLA , J The petitioner is before this Court for quashing order dated 23.05.2025 (Annexure P-3) whereby the Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram, held that the disputed land is owned by Gram Panchayat, Dongra Jat and petitioner has occupied the plot No.136 in Khasra No.79//2 Firni by making a house and constructing the stairs in front of the gate measuring 7 square yards. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was held in illegal encroachment on 07 square yards of land by constructing stairs in Plot No.136, Khasra No.79//2 by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kanina, vide order dated 21.03.2022, thereby directing him to handover its possession to Gram Pancayat, Daungra Jat after removal of the encroachment. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Collector, Mahendergarh vide order dated 27.09.2022. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram, which was also dismissed vide the impugned order dated 23.05.2025. AVIN KUMAR 2025.08.13 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order. CWP No.22293 of 2025 [2] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner is the sole occupant of Khasra No.136 in the area measuring 1 kanal 4 marla as per jamabandi for the year 2019-2020 wherein he has constructed his house. Before construction, the land was demarcated in the presence of prominent people of the village. The Gram Panchayat, Dongra Jat, Tehsil Kanina, District Mahendergarh has paved the road and constructed drains near the house of the petitioner and installed electric poles for street lights on the spot, making it clear that petitioner is not in illegal possession of the land owned by the Gram Panchayat. However, the Assistant Collector 1st Collector, Kanina, has passed eviction orders against the petitioner on the basis of demarcation report dated 26.03.2021, whereas vide demarcation report dated 21.03.2023 conducted by Omprakash Mandia, Kanungo (Retd.), petitioner was not found in any illegal possession of the land of Gram Panchayat. Thus, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, has passed order dated 21.03.2022 contrary to the facts. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that on an application dated 18.03.2021 moved by Mahender Singh (respondent No.4 herein) whereupon Mahendra Singh Gauraval, Naib Tehsildar (Rtd.) visited the spot on 26.03.2021 and conducted demarcation in the presence of petitioner and prominent persons of the village, on the basis of which it was found that petitioner has constructed his house in Plot No.136 in Khasra No.79//2 and illegally occupied 07 square yards in the Firni by making stairs in front of the gate. 5. Heard. 6. The sole point raised by the petitioner for challenging the impugned orders is that the authorities have not considered the demarcation report dated 21.01.2023 whereby the petitioner was not found in any illegal AVIN KUMAR 2025.08.13 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order. CWP No.22293 of 2025 [3] possession of the land in question and passed the impugned orders on the basis of demarcation report dated 26.03.2021. It has been held by the authorities below that ownership of the land in question vests in the Gram Panchayat, Dongra Jat, and there is illegal encroachment on the Panchayat land by constructing the stairs in front of the house and the petition for removal is filed by private respondent and not by Gram Panchayat and respondent No.4 is Mahender Singh who himself is in illegal possession of Gram Panchayat land. 7. The orders passed by the authorities as well as the demarcation report 26.03.2021 makes it evident that the petitioner has illegally occupied the Panchayat land by making stairs on it. The demarcation dated 26.03.2021 was carried out by a Naib Tehsildar (Retd.) in presence of petitioner. So, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Apart from that, alongwith the present petition, the petitioner has annexed photographs which clearly depict that he has made encroachment in the street by constructing stairs and a shed, wherein Gram Panchayat had already laid locking tiles for passage. Petitioner in his written arguments filed through counsel, Amit Kumar, Advocate before Commissioner, Gurugram which are annexed as Annexure P-5 also show that the petitioner himself admitted that the stairs in front of his house are on the street. 8. The demarcation dated 21.01.2023 (Annexure P-4) on which the petitioner places reliance is not to be taken into consideration for the following reasons: (i) the said demarcation was carried out after the passing of the order by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, dated 21.03.2022 and same having been upheld by the Collector, Mahendergarh vide order dated 27.09.2022; and (ii) the demarcation report dated 21.03.2023 is by a retired Kanungo whereas the demarcation dated 26.03.2021, relied upon in the orders AVIN KUMAR 2025.08.13 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order. CWP No.22293 of 2025 [4] impugned before us, was carried out by a Naib Tehsildar who is senior in hierarchy to a Kanungo. 9. Streets are public properties which are intended to serve the convenience of the general public. Their use for private purpose frustrates the very object for which lands are carved out for being used as streets. No one has the right to make use of a public property for a private purpose without requisite authorization. Public streets are primarily dedicated for the purpose of passage. If a person puts any public property to a use for which it is not intended and is not authorized, he becomes a trespasser. 9. In view the above discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings on fact arrived by the Assistant Collector, the Collector and the Commissioner holding the petitioner to be in unauthorized possession of a passage and accordingly, we unhesitantly dismiss the petition. (Deepak Sibal) Judge (Subhas Mehla) Judge August 13, 2025 avin Whether Speaking/ Reasoned: Yes/ No Whether Reportable: Yes/ No AVIN KUMAR 2025.08.13 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order.