CWP-4107-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** CWP-4107-2026 Date of decision : 14.07.2026 Partap @ Partap Singh ... Petitioner Versus Divisional Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Addl.A.G. Haryana. VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL) 1. In the present civil writ petition, following prayers have been made:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed for the issuance of : - a) records of the case be called for; b) condition of issuance of advance notice to the respondents may kindly be dispensed with; c) a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 10.06.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal (respondent No.1), in revision petition bearing No.ER313/2024 titled ‘Ramphal and another versus Balinder Singh and others’ vide which revision petition DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.17 09:37 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-4107-2026 2 (Annexure P-5) has been dismissed while upholding the impugned order dated 05.08.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Collector, Panipat (respondent No.2), in appeal bearing No.45/DC titled ‘Ramphal and another versus Balinder Singh and others’ and the impugned order dated 31.03.2021 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Panipat (respondent No.3), in case bearing No.338/PVCLA titled ‘Gram Panchayat Nimbri versus Jai Bhagwan and others’, whereby, application dated 23.02.2015 (Annexure P-1) under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, filed by Gram Panchayat Nimbri (respondent No.5) against the petitioner and proforma respondents No.6 to 9 has been allowed and the petitioner and proforma respondents No.6 to 9 have been ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute besides imposing the penalty, as depicted in the last paragraph of the impugned order dated 31.03.2021 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.3; d) during pendency of the present writ petition before this Hon’ble Court, operation and execution of all the above mentioned three impugned orders (Annexures P-6, P-4 and P-3, respectively) passed by respondents No.1 to 3 may kindly be stayed, in the interest of justice; e) filing of certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-6 may kindly be dispensed with, as the same are not readily available with the petitioner at the time of filing of present writ petition, however, true copies of the same duly stamped are being filed; f) any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed; g) any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.17 09:37 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-4107-2026 3 circumstances of the present case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents; costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. The brief facts of the present case are that respondent no.5- Gram Panchayat had filed a petition under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Land Act (presently known as the Haryana Village Common Land Act, 1961 and hereinafter to be referred as “1961 Act”) for ejectment of the petitioner along with four other persons from the land comprised in khewat no.452, khatoni no.852, Rect. No.54/1(0-9), 54/2(0-4), 54/6(2-14), 54/11(0-2), 54/18 (0-3) to Killa no.23 and 24/1 (2-0), 24/2 situated within the revenue estate of village Nimbri, Tehsil and Block Panipat, District Panipat. A further prayer was made for imposing a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on each of the respondents therein. It was the case of the Gram Panchayat that the land in question was owned by the Gram Panchayat and the same was also being maintained by the Gram Panchayat since the time of consolidation. Further reference was made to demarcation report dated 21.10.2014, as per which, the respondents therein along with the present petitioner were found to be in illegal possession of the property in question. A written statement was filed by the petitioner and two other respondents therein opposing the ejectment petition. 3. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat, allowed the said petition filed by the respondent-Gram Panchayat and observed that according to the revenue record, Gram Panchayat, Nimbri is owner of the DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.17 09:37 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-4107-2026 4 land in dispute and as per the demarcation report dated 21.10.2014, the petitioner along with other respondents therein were in illegal occupation and accordingly ordered the eviction of the petitioner along with other respondents therein and also imposed penalty of Rs.2000/- on each of the respondents therein including the petitioner. The petitioner along with Ramphal had filed an appeal against the said order, which was dismissed by the Collector, Panipat, vide order dated 05.08.2024 (Annexure P-4). A perusal of the above order would show that the Collector had taken into consideration the revenue record including the jamabandi for the year 2007- 08 as per which the Gram Panchayat was recorded as the owner of the land in dispute and the same was reserved for pond (Johar) and had further observed that the petitioner has no ownership right or title in the land in question. It was further stated that the said appeal had been filed on 22.03.2023 against the order which was passed on 31.03.2021 and thus, there was delay of two years in filing the said appeal and thus, both on merits and on the said aspect, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner along with the said Ramphal had thereafter filed revision petition before the Commissioner and the Commissioner also dismissed the said revision after taking into consideration the revenue record including the jamabandi and observed that the land in question was owned by the Gram Panchayat and the same was reserved for pond / johar. It is the said orders which have been challenged before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the zimni DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.17 09:37 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-4107-2026 5 orders to contend that in the present case there is no evidence that has been led on behalf of the Gram Panchayat before the authorities and thus, the eviction orders are against law and deserve to be set aside. It is further argued that even the statement of Sarpanch was not recorded in the said proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that even in the demarcation report the name of the petitioner does not figure and has referred to the English translation of the demarcation report dated 21.10.2014 at page 26 of the paper book. 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper book and finds that the impugned orders have been rightly passed and deserve to be upheld and the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter. 6. There is a concurrent finding of fact of all the authorities that as per the jamabandi, the land in question is shown to be owned by the Gram Panchayat and is reserved for pond / johar and the petitioner has no ownership right or title of any kind as per the record. The said aspect could not be disputed before this Court as no jamabandi has been annexed with the writ petition to show that the said observations made by the authorities is perverse or against the record. Thus, there is no rebuttal to the finding that as per the revenue record, the Gram Panchayat is shown to be owner of the property and the property is recorded as pond/johar in the revenue record. It would be relevant to note that initially the eviction was sought against five persons. DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.17 09:37 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-4107-2026 6 7. The argument raised on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that no evidence had been led by the respondent-Gram Panchayat is not correct. A perusal of the zimni orders which have been reproduced by the petitioner in paragraph 4 of the writ petition would show that on 28.07.2016, the statement of Sarpanch of Gram Panchyat was recorded. 8. A subsequent perusal of the zimni orders would show that opportunity was granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the Sarpanch on 26.08.2016, 16.09.2016, 06.10.2016, 28.10.2016, 17.11.2016, 15.12.2016, 09.01.2017, 25.01.2017, 08.02.2017, 20.02.2017, 12.04.2017, 04.05.2017, 25.05.2017, 15.06.2017, 14.07.2017, 10.08.2017, 17.08.2017, 08.09.2017, 10.10.2017 and on several other dates but on each and every date, a request for adjournment was made on behalf of the learned counsel for the present petitioner and other respondents therein apparently to delay the proceedings and in order to continue with their unauthorized possession over the property which belonged to the Gram Panchayat. 9. On a pointed query raised by this Court as to whether the petitioner ultimately cross-examined the Sarpanch or not, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the said Sarpanch was not cross- examined. It is a matter of settled law that in a case where a witness for a party gives evidence in examination-in-chief and is not cross-examined then, the evidence given in the examination-in-chief would stand admitted and unrebutted. Be that as it may, it has already been observed that even the revenue record i.e., jamabandi has been considered and as per the said DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.17 09:37 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-4107-2026 7 jamabandi, the ownership is of the Gram Panchayat. The argument that statement of Sarpanch was not recorded is also incorrect, inasmuch as, in paragraph 5 of the present writ petition, the statement of Sarpanch Jagbir Singh Malik, in which he has specifically stated that the land is owned by Gram Panchayat and the respondents therein (including the present petitioner) have illegally occupied the said land, has been reproduced. The last argument raised on behalf of the petitioner with respect to the demarcation report, to the effect that the petitioner was not named in the said demarcation report is also contrary to the record, inasmuch as, the demarcation report, which has been reproduced in paragraph 9 of the petition shows that the name of Partap s/o Teka appears at serial no.20 in the said demarcation report and it has also been stated that the petitioner is in illegal / unauthorized possession of specific land. 10. The eviction has been sought with respect to specific khasra numbers. The petitioner has not been able to show any right of ownership in the said khasra numbers and thus, the eviction order has been rightly passed. The eviction proceedings were initiated under Section 7 of the 1961 Act and the same are summary proceedings. In the said proceedings, reliance upon the revenue record i.e., jamabandi as well as the statement made by the Sarpanch are sufficient evidence to show the nature of the property and once, as per the same, it is shown that the property is owned by the Gram Panchayat and is being used as “Gair Mumkin Pond/Johar”, then, the onus would shift upon the petitioner to rebut the said entries in the revenue DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.17 09:37 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-4107-2026 8 record. Once there is no rebuttal by the petitioner and the entries in the jamabandi are not disputed, then, it cannot be said that the order had been passed without there being any evidence on record. 11. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is meritless and is dismissed and the impugned orders having been passed in accordance with law, are upheld. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE July 14, 2026. Davinder Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.17 09:37 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment