CWP-11799-2026 [1] 112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11799-2026 Date of decision: 03.07.2026 Dalwinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt. and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. Jagram Singh Cooner, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Addl. A.G. Haryana. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari for setting aside/quashing of order dated 11.02.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt. Challenge in the writ petition is also to the order dated 18.01.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by the District Collector, Ambala and also order dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Ambala. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that respondent Nos.4 and 5 had filed a petition for ejectment of Gurnam Singh (father of the PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.05 08:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-11799-2026 [2] petitioner) and also for ejectment of Gurdev Singh from the land in question, which was situated within the abadi of Village Majri, Tehsil and District Ambala. The said ejectment petition has been annexed as Annexure P-4 with the present writ petition. A perusal of the same would show that it was the case of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 that they were proprietors of the Village Majri, Tehsil and District Ambala and they had got an interest to save the public property from being encroached upon and that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and Gurdev Singh had an evil eye on the Gram Panchayat land and that civil suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner along with Gurdev Singh had been dismissed by the trial Court. It was further stated that even suit for declaration under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961 filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and Gurdev Singh had also been dismissed and the suit land was lying vacant. It was submitted that the suit property was vacant land in the abadi and it was meant for common use of the villagers at large and it vested in the Panchayat for all intents and purposes and the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner as well as Gurdev Singh had no right in the said property. 3. Written statement was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and the said Gurdev Singh and copy of the said written statement has been annexed as Annexure P-5 along with the present writ petition. In the said written statement, there was no plea taken that there was any house or construction raised by the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner or by Gurdev Singh, in the property in question. PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.05 08:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-11799-2026 [3] 4. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, vide order dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure P-3) had allowed the application and directed the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner as well as Gurdev Singh to vacate the premises as it was observed that they were in unauthorized possession of the land. A perusal of the said order would show that it was specifically noticed that the land in dispute was vacant land in abadi deh and was being used as a common passage and the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was in unauthorised possession. It was also observed that although, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner as well as Gurdev Singh had taken the plea that they were in possession for several decades but they could not produce any solid proof regarding the same. 5. Appeal filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner as well as Gurdev Singh against the order dated 30.10.2018 was dismissed vide order dated 18.01.2023 (Annexure P-2). The aspect with respect to the land in dispute being a vacant land in abadi deh and it being used for common purpose i.e., common passage was reiterated. It was further observed that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner as well as Gurdev Singh had not been able to prove or produce any evidence regarding their ownership of the land in question. Revision petition filed against the said order by the present petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 11.02.2026 (Annexure P-1). In the said order, it was observed that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade as well as by the District Collector were in accordance with law and there was no illegality in the same and deserve to be upheld. It was reiterated that no PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.05 08:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-11799-2026 [4] document had been produced by the petitioner in his favour. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has a house in the land in question and thus, it cannot be said that the land is vacant land. The said plea is contrary to the pleadings in the ejectment petition. In the ejectment petition filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5, it was specifically observed in para 8 that the suit property was vacant abadi land. Para 8 of the said petition which has been annexed as Annexure P-4 with the present writ petition is reproduced hereinbelow:- “8. That the suit property is vacant abadi land meant for common use of the villagers at large and it vests in the panchayat for all purposes and intends and the respondents no. 1 and 2 have no right to retain its possession in any manner what so ever and they deserve to be ejected from the said land, hence this petition.” 7. In the entire written statement (Annexure P-5), no plea was taken by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and Gurdev Singh that there was any house constructed. Even in response to para 8 of the petition for eviction, only plea taken was that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and Gurdev Singh were owners and in possession of the land. Para 8 of the written statement is reproduced hereinbelow:- “8. That para no.8 of the petition is wrong and empathetically denied. The property in question is owned and possessed by the answering respondents and does not fall within the definition of Shamlat Deh as already submitted in preceding paras of this written reply and the answering respondents have legal and legitimate right as PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.05 08:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-11799-2026 [5] owners in lawful possession.” 8. It is thus, apparent that no plea with respect to there being any house on the land in question was raised by the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner and Gurdev Singh and apparently, the plea now sought to be raised is an afterthought. At any rate, the same clearly proves that on the date when the written statement was filed by the predecessor- in-interest of the petitioner, there was no construction on the property in question. Moreover, it is a matter of settled law that no plea, arguments or evidence contrary to the pleadings and beyond pleadings is admissible. Further, the petitioner has not been able to show any document which would remotely show that the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner or Gurdev Singh or the petitioner is the owner of the property in question. 9. Thus, the finding of all the three authorities to the effect that the land was vacant land in abadi and was used for common purposes/common passage cannot be stated to be illegal or perverse. Moreover, a perusal of Section 2(g)(4a) of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 would show that the vacant land, situated in abadi deh or gorah deh, not owned by any person would also fall within the definition of shamilat deh. Thus, even in case vacant land in abadi deh or gorah deh is not being used for any common purpose, but is not owned by any person, then also the same would fall within the definition of shamilat deh. Section 2(g)(4a) of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, is reproduced hereinbelow:- “2(g) “shamilat deh” includes---- PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.05 08:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-11799-2026 [6] xxx xxx [(4a) vacant land situate in abadi deh or gorah deh not owned by any person;]” 10. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gram Panchayat Village Bir Kalwa Vs. Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala reported as 2015(1) RCR (Civil) 505, after taking into consideration the provisions of Section 2(g)(4a) of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, had observed as under: “10. But the finding of the learned Assistant Collector that the vacant land does not vest in Panchayat, as the Panchayat has not produced any documentary evidence that it was left for common purposes of the villagers, is incorrect and contrary to the provisions of Section 2(g)(4a) of the Act, which was inserted by Haryana Act No.15 of 1983, but w.e.f. 12.02.1981 i.e. even much before the filing of the proceedings under Section 7 of the Act by the Panchayat. The use of the land for the common purpose for the inhabitants of the village in abadi deh or gora deh land was relevant prior to addition of clause (4a) vide Haryana Act No.15 of 1983. The authorities have overlooked the provisions of Section 2(g)(4a) of the Act, which make the vacant land within abadi deh as vesting in Panchayat. 11. Consequently, order passed by authority under the Act holding that such vacant land would vest with Fakiria is not sustainable. The said part of the order is set aside. Portion ABCD alone would vest with respondent No.4 Fakiria, wherein his house is constructed. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to allow the present writ petition in the above terms.” PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.05 08:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-11799-2026 [7] 11. In the abovesaid case, it was observed that after incorporation of the provision of Section 2(g)(4a) of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, user of the vacant abadi land becomes irrelevant as vacant land within abadi which is not owned by any person even if not used for common purposes would be shamilat deh land. In the said case, although the authority had held to the contrary but the Division Bench of this Court, after considering the said provision, had set aside the order passed by the authority. 12. It would be relevant to note that the abovesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as SLP (Civil) No.10856 of 2014 against the same has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25.07.2014. 13. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impugned orders have been passed in accordance with law and deserve to be upheld and the present writ petition, being meritless, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 03.07.2026 Pawan Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.05 08:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document