CWP-23798 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Shish Ram and others State of Haryana CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Ketan for the petitioner Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional A.G., Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. LAPITA BANERJI Challenge in the present petition the Constitution of India P-1), passed by the Assistant Collector order dated September 10, 2014 Mahendragarh September 15, 2023 2. By the aforesaid impug Gram Panchayat Common Land Act’) was allowed by the AC reaffirmed by the 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 23798 of 2024 (O&M) Sr. No.132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-23798 of 2024 Reserved on 01.09.2025 Pronounced on and others Versus State of Haryana HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Ketan Antil, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional A.G., Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. *** LAPITA BANERJI, J. Challenge in the present petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated February 23, 2012 passed by the Assistant Collector First Class, Narnaul, order dated September 10, 2014, passed Mahendragarh at Narnaul (Annexure P-3) September 15, 2023, passed by the Commissioner, G By the aforesaid impugned orders, the Gram Panchayat (for short ‘G.P.’) under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to was allowed by the AC, which was affirmed by the Collector and reaffirmed by the Commissioner. Brief facts of the case are as follows: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 23798 of 2024 (O&M) Reserved on 01.09.2025 Pronounced on :15.09.2025 …Petitioners …Respondent DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional A.G., Haryana and Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. filed under Articles 226/227 of is to the order dated February 23, 2012, (Annexure Class, Narnaul, (for short ‘AC’); passed by the Collector, District 3) as well as the order dated passed by the Commissioner, Gurugram (Annexure P-5). ed orders, the application filed by the under Section 7 of the Punjab Village (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1961 affirmed by the Collector and Brief facts of the case are as follows:- VANDANA 2025.09.17 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23798 of 2024 i) The disputed land admeasuring about 1 kanal 15 marlas is situated in Khewat No Bakhrija, Tehsil Narnaul. ii) The about and recorded as ‘ owned by the GP iii) The G.P. instituted Act but the proceedings, dated February eviction of iv) The petitioners filed an appeal before the it was peon who was to effect service to the pasting of the summons on the wall of the construction owned contended without any opportunity of hearing b in breach of principles of natural justice. v) The demarcation report unchalleng already the petitioners was dismissed. vi) In the respondent No.2 23798 of 2024 (O&M) The disputed land admeasuring about 1 kanal 15 marlas is situated in Khewat No.40 Min, Khatoni No.157, Khasra Bakhrija, Tehsil Narnaul. The said land is a part and parcel of the total land about 12 kanals 9 marlas situated in the aforesaid khatoni and recorded as ‘Gair Mumkin Playground owned by the GP in the Jamabandi for the year 2002 The G.P. instituted eviction proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 Act but the petitioners who were defendant proceedings, did not put in appearance dated February 23, 2012, was passed by the AC eviction of the petitioners from the disputed land. The petitioners filed an appeal before the it was contended that summons had not been peon who was to effect service had given to the pasting of the summons on the wall of the construction owned/occupied by the petitioners. contended in the appeal, that the ejectment order was pas without any opportunity of hearing being granted to the petitioners, in breach of principles of natural justice. The Collector after hearing the parties held that demarcation report dated November 25, 2007 (which remained unchallenged), the illegal occupation of the petitioners’ house already been recorded and no document was petitioners to prove their ownership. was dismissed. the revision petition filed by the petitioners, respondent No.2 observed that in the revenue records The disputed land admeasuring about 1 kanal 15 marlas is situated .40 Min, Khatoni No.157, Khasra No.120/2 Village land is a part and parcel of the total land admeasuring tuated in the aforesaid khatoni number Playground’ which is shown to be the Jamabandi for the year 2002-2003. proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 defendants No.1 to 4 in the afore put in appearance. Consequently, the order passed by the AC ordering the the petitioners from the disputed land. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector, Narnaul wherein had not been served upon them. The had given a false report, with regard to the pasting of the summons on the wall of the construction, by the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners that the ejectment order was passed ex parte eing granted to the petitioners, in breach of principles of natural justice. Collector after hearing the parties held that as per the dated November 25, 2007 (which remained the illegal occupation of the petitioners’ house had o document was brought on record by to prove their ownership. Accordingly, their appeal revision petition filed by the petitioners, the Commissioner- in the revenue records the disputed VANDANA 2025.09.17 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23798 of 2024 land was demarcation report clearly showed encroached over the Panchayat land by constructing a and a house. vii) Furthermore, i that the same was done in the presence of the petitioners but they had refused to sign the not able to adduce any lawful possession over the land in dispute dismissed by 4. Challenging t 10.09.2014 and 15.09.2023, Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that no notice was served upon the petitioners and therefore the order dated February 2 principles of natural justice Furthermore, the demarcation was not done in the presence of t and even if it was demarcation being conducted, still the petitioners admittedly occupation of procedure of law kanal 15 marlas of land out of total land admeasuring 12 kanals 9 marlas and should be allowed to pay for the disputed land in question and their possession over the same should be regularized, in the interest of justice. 6. Issue notice 7. Mr. respondents No.1 to 4 and submits that the petitioners are in unauthorized 23798 of 2024 (O&M) land was recorded as “Gair Mumkin Khel Kood Maidan’ demarcation report clearly showed encroached over the Panchayat land by constructing a and a house. Furthermore, it was specifically recorded in the demarcation report that the same was done in the presence of the petitioners but they had refused to sign the attendance sheet. not able to adduce any evidence to show either their ownership or lawful possession over the land in dispute dismissed by the Commissioner. Challenging the aforesaid impugned orders dated 23.02.2012, 10.09.2014 and 15.09.2023, the petitioners filed Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits notice was served upon the petitioners and therefore the order dated February 23, 2012 passed by the AC principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside on that ground alone Furthermore, the demarcation was not done in the presence of t and even if it was assumed that the petitioners were present at the time of the demarcation being conducted, still the petitioners admittedly occupation of disputed land could not be evicted without following the due procedure of law. The petitioners are only in oc kanal 15 marlas of land out of total land admeasuring 12 kanals 9 marlas and should be allowed to pay for the disputed land in question and their possession over the same should be regularized, in the interest of justice. Issue notice of motion to the respondents. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 and submits that the petitioners are in unauthorized Gair Mumkin Khel Kood Maidan’ and the demarcation report clearly showed that the petitioners had encroached over the Panchayat land by constructing a pukhta wall t was specifically recorded in the demarcation report that the same was done in the presence of the petitioners but they sheet. Since the petitioners were evidence to show either their ownership or lawful possession over the land in dispute, the revision petition was he aforesaid impugned orders dated 23.02.2012, the petitioners filed the instant petition under Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits notice was served upon the petitioners and therefore the impugned the AC was in breach of the and is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Furthermore, the demarcation was not done in the presence of the petitioners assumed that the petitioners were present at the time of the demarcation being conducted, still the petitioners admittedly being in could not be evicted without following the due . The petitioners are only in occupation of approximately 1 kanal 15 marlas of land out of total land admeasuring 12 kanals 9 marlas and should be allowed to pay for the disputed land in question and their possession over the same should be regularized, in the interest of justice. to the respondents. Mago, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 and submits that the petitioners are in unauthorized VANDANA 2025.09.17 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23798 of 2024 possession of the Panchayat land and under Section 7 of the 1961 Act and the orders dated 10.09.2014 have also been should not be interfered with as the impugned orders are neither arbitrary nor perverse. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. The petitioners the year 2007, Reliance on the Resolution of the the recommendation/no objection of the District Elementary Education Officer, Narnaul dated November 16, 2009 do not a petitioners as both the recommendations respondent-Gram Panchayat to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 Act on October 18, 2010. Finally the said proceedings were decided vide the impugned order dated February 23, 2012 passed by the AC. 10. This Court cannot agree with the submissions made service of notice service of same report produced before the Court of the AC, it appears that when the Village Chowkidar visited the house of the petitioners they were not present and therefore the summons were pasted upon the defendants/respondents by way of pasting of summons on a conspicuous part of the building when the defendants/respondents are not available to receive the same, is an 11. Therefore, this Court finds no force in proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 Act were decided against the 23798 of 2024 (O&M) possession of the Panchayat land and that the order dated under Section 7 of the 1961 Act by the AC does not suffer from any infirmity rders dated 10.09.2014 and 15.09.2023 been rightly passed. The concurrent findings of the authorities belo interfered with as the impugned orders are neither arbitrary nor This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The petitioners, despite being present neither signed the attendance sheet nor challenged the report. Reliance on the Resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated the recommendation/no objection of the District Elementary Education Officer, Narnaul dated November 16, 2009 do not a petitioners as both the recommendations were made prior to the Gram Panchayat to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 Act on October 18, 2010. Finally the said proceedings were decided vide gned order dated February 23, 2012 passed by the AC. This Court cannot agree with the submissions made service of notice upon the petitioners in course of same has been clearly recorded in the impugned order. From the report produced before the Court of the AC, it appears that when the Village Chowkidar visited the house of the petitioners they were not present and therefore the summons were pasted on the wall of upon the defendants/respondents by way of pasting of summons on a conspicuous part of the building when the defendants/respondents are not available to receive the same, is an accepted mode of service Therefore, this Court finds no force in proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 Act were decided against the the order dated 23.02.2012 passed by the AC does not suffer from any infirmity and 15.09.2023 upholding the order of the AC The concurrent findings of the authorities below interfered with as the impugned orders are neither arbitrary nor This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and despite being present during the demarcation in he attendance sheet nor challenged the report. anchayat dated August 02, 2008 and the recommendation/no objection of the District Elementary Education Officer, Narnaul dated November 16, 2009 do not aid the case of the made prior to the decision of the Gram Panchayat to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 Act on October 18, 2010. Finally the said proceedings were decided vide gned order dated February 23, 2012 passed by the AC. This Court cannot agree with the submissions made qua the non- the petitioners in course of Section 7 proceedings as the in the impugned order. From the report produced before the Court of the AC, it appears that when the Village Chowkidar visited the house of the petitioners they were not present and on the wall of their residence. Service upon the defendants/respondents by way of pasting of summons on a conspicuous part of the building when the defendants/respondents are not mode of service, in law. Therefore, this Court finds no force in the argument that the proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 Act were decided against the VANDANA 2025.09.17 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23798 of 2024 petitioners in breach of the principles of natural justice and without service of notice especially when n show that either they were the owners of the disputed property or they were in authorized possession of the same as have been concurrently held by the authorities below. 12. In the cannot be permitted t reserved as a playground ‘ 13. The petitioners of the same at least since the attempt to regularize their unauthorized possession by payment to the G.P Therefore, after 18 years such a prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered, in the absence of any present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. On humanitarian grounds, the petitioners date of this order upon payment of fine as assessed by the learned AC vide order dated February 23, 2012. 14. With the directions aforesaid CWP (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE SEPTEMBER 15 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 23798 of 2024 (O&M) petitioners in breach of the principles of natural justice and without service of especially when none of the petitioners could produce any evidence to that either they were the owners of the disputed property or they were in thorized possession of the same as have been concurrently held by the authorities below. In the light of the discussion made cannot be permitted to encroach upon the Gram Panchayat playground ‘Gair Mumkin Khel Kood Maidan’. The petitioners knowingly have been in unauthorized possession of the same at least since the time demarcation was done in 200 attempt to regularize their unauthorized possession by payment to the G.P Therefore, after 18 years such a prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered, in the absence of any pleaded policy. This Court finds no merit at all in the etition and the same is hereby dismissed. On humanitarian grounds, are allowed to vacate the suit land within two months from the date of this order upon payment of fine as assessed by the learned AC vide order dated February 23, 2012. With the directions aforesaid CWP DEEPAK SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI SEPTEMBER 15, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No petitioners in breach of the principles of natural justice and without service of one of the petitioners could produce any evidence to that either they were the owners of the disputed property or they were in thorized possession of the same as have been concurrently held by the light of the discussion made hereinabove, the petitioners o encroach upon the Gram Panchayat’s land which is Gair Mumkin Khel Kood Maidan’. have been in unauthorized possession time demarcation was done in 2007 and made no attempt to regularize their unauthorized possession by payment to the G.P. Therefore, after 18 years such a prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered, This Court finds no merit at all in the etition and the same is hereby dismissed. On humanitarian grounds, allowed to vacate the suit land within two months from the date of this order upon payment of fine as assessed by the learned AC vide With the directions aforesaid CWP-23798 of 2024 is disposed of. LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2025.09.17 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document