CWP No. 21306 of 2026 IN THE Ram Singh State of Haryana CORAM: Present: SUBHAS MEHLA, 1. Constitution for setting aside by Divisional 24.01.2023 dated 04.02.2021(Annexure cum-DDPO Punjab Village Act") culminated BRIEF FACTUAL 2. bearing No. Singh and another CWP No. 21306 of 2026 (O&M) -1- THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH CWP Date versus Haryana and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Additional MEHLA, J. This is a civil writ petition Constitution of India seeking issuance of a aside/quashing order dated 29.04. Divisional Commissioner, Ambala Division, (Annexure P-11) passed by Collector, 04.02.2021(Annexure P-10) passed by DDPO whereby proceedings instituted Village Common Lands (Regulatio culminated in an order of eviction against FACTUAL MATRIX Succinctly stated, respondents No. 196/DDPO (Annexure P-2) dated another versus Ram Singh and others’ PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21306 of 2026 (O&M) of decision: 16.07.2026 ... Petitioner ... Respondents VIKAS BAHL SUBHAS MEHLA for the petitioner. Additional A.G., Haryana. under Articles 226/227 of the a writ in the nature of certiorari 29.04.2026 (Annexure P-13) passed Division, Ambala; order dated Collector, Kurukshetra and order by Assistant Collector 1st Grade- instituted under Section 7(2) of the (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, "the against the petitioner. No.6 and 7 filed an application dated 30.03.2018 titled ‘Malkit others’ under Section 7(2) of the the certiorari passed dated order - the "the application ‘Malkit the RAMESH MALIK 2026.07.20 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP No. 21306 of 2026 Punjab Village Village Common ejectment of (father of petitioner) (Annexure P Panchayat c (2-18), Khewat No. 210, Khasra Khasra No.49 Dera, Tehsil per jamabandi belongs to (father of petitioner) more than 30 the Gram Panchayat Mahendra Singh cultivating the Panchayat. 3. conducted Mahendra Singh 73. Thereafter, No.287/DDPO and others’ CWP No. 21306 of 2026 (O&M) -2- Village Common Lands (Regulation) Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 of the petitioner and one Mahe petitioner) on the basis of demarcation P-1) alleging illegal possession comprising Khewat No.103, Khatoni Khewat No. 133. Khatoni No. 212, Khasra No.70 (11-18), Khewat No.49 (7-18) situated within the revenue Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra jamabandi for the year 2013-14. It was Gram Panchayat and the petitioner petitioner) are in unauthorized 30-40 years wherein they have installed Panchayat had never given the Singh either on patta or on the same without paying any rent In the meanwhile, marking on 12.01.2019 as per which Singh were in illegal possession Thereafter, Gram Panchayat also filed No.287/DDPO on 06.03.2019 titled ‘Gram others’ seeking ejectment of the petitioner (Regulation) Act, 1961, now Haryana 1961 (for short ‘Act of 1961’) for ender Singh son of Risal Singh demarcation report dated 06.01.2018 of land belonging to the Gram Khatoni No.156, Khasra No.73 212, Khasra No. 66 (0-13), Khatoni No.135, Khatoni No.215, and revenue estate of village Rattan Kurukshetra (for short ‘land in dispute’), as was alleged that the land in dispute petitioner and one Mahender Singh possession thereof for the last installed a tube-well therein and the land to the petitioner and/or auction, and they have been rent or lease money to the Gram marking of illegal occupation was the petitioner and his father possession of Khasra Nos.66, 70, 49 and filed a separate application bearing ‘Gram Panchayat versus Ram Singh petitioner and others from the Haryana for Singh 06.01.2018 Gram No.73 Khatoni and Rattan as dispute Singh last and /or been Gram was father and bearing Singh the RAMESH MALIK 2026.07.20 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP No. 21306 of 2026 unauthorized consolidated 4. P-4) by taking title or interest the village, in possession been impleaded personal rivalry demarcation demarcation demarcation 13-A of the basis of his court of District ejectment application 5. Kurukshetra (Annexure P of the petitioner Further, the hand over the period of 15 Panchayat) CWP No. 21306 of 2026 (O&M) -3- unauthorized possession of the land in dispute. olidated and common proceedings were In his defence, the petitioner filed taking the pleas inter alia that the interest in the land in dispute; the petitioner namely, Nirmal Singh, Kulwinder possession of a part of the land in dispute impleaded as party; that the application rivalry and political factionalism demarcation report dated 06.01.2018 is factually demarcation had taken place nor the petitioner demarcation process; the petitioner had already the Act of 1961 claiming ownership his alleged possession thereof and District Collector and in view of application be dismissed or adjourned After hearing both the sides, Kurukshetra (respondent No.4), vide impugned P-10), allowed both the application petitioner and his father Mahender Singh he petitioner and above-said Mahender the possession of the land in dispute 5 days and if they failed to do so, had been given a right to take possession dispute. Both the applications were were conducted therein. filed written statement (Annexure the Gram Panchayat has no right, petitioner and other inhabitants of Kulwinder Singh, Shyam Singh etc. are dispute since 1930, but they have not application had been filed on account of factionalism in the village; that the factually incorrect, and in fact, no petitioner had been associated in the already filed a suit under Section ownership of the land in dispute on the and the said suit is pending in the of the same he prayed that the adjourned sine die. sides, Assistant Collector 1st grade, impugned order dated 04.02.2021 applications and ordered the ejectment Singh from the land in dispute. Mahender Singh were directed to dispute to Gram Panchayat within a so, then respondent No.5 (Gram possession of the land in dispute were (Annexure right, of are not of the no the Section the the the grade, 04.02.2021 ejectment dispute. to a (Gram dispute RAMESH MALIK 2026.07.20 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP No. 21306 of 2026 with the help 6. (Annexure Kurukshetra 24.01.2023(Annexure has not produced Grade to prov is in possession petitioner had demarcation 06.01.2018 village through appellants (petitioner were in illegal that the a notice Collector also failed to produce installed electricity Collector dismissed (Annexure occupy the Gram 7. (Annexure Divisional Commissioner, CWP No. 21306 of 2026 (O&M) -4- help of the police. The petitioner being aggrieved P-10) filed an appeal before respondent Kurukshetra, who, after hearing both 24.01.2023(Annexure P-11) dismissed the produced any document before the prove that the land in dispute falls possession thereof since 1930. The Collector had failed to produce any material demarcation was fraudulent, and in fact was prepared in the presence of through computerized total machine, (petitioner before this Court and illegal possession of the land in dispute; notice for demarcation was issued also made a categorical observation produce any documents to prove electricity meters on the disputed land dismissed the appeal vide impugned P-11) while observing that no Gram Panchayat land. The petitioner still being aggrieved P-11) filed a revision petition Commissioner, Ambala (respondent aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2021 respondent No.3 i.e. Collector, the sides vide order dated same holding that the appellant the court of Assistant Collector 1st falls within ‘abadi deh’ and that he Collector further observed that the material to establish that the the demarcation report dated of 17 respectable persons of the machine, according to which, the and his father Mahendra Singh) dispute; it has also been recorded issued by the local Kanungo. Learned observation to the effect that the appellant prove that they built houses and land before 1981. Hence, learned impugned order dated 24.01.2023 person has a right to illegally aggrieved by order dated 24.01.2023 petition (Annexure P-12) before the respondent No.2). However, the same 04.02.2021 Collector, dated appellant st he the the dated the the Singh) recorded Learned appellant and learned 24.01.2023 illegally 24.01.2023 the same RAMESH MALIK 2026.07.20 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP No. 21306 of 2026 was also dismissed P-13), holding vests in the be in illegal CONTENTIONS 8. and his predecessors the last several 26.01.1950, 4(3) of the Act It is argued No.49 is Gair concern therewith. 06.01.2018 demarcation involving a eviction proceedings petitioner lastly demarcation Act and relied 2012(68)RCR(Civil)184 CONTENTIONS 9. supported the CWP No. 21306 of 2026 (O&M) -5- dismissed vide impugned order holding that the land in dispute is reserved Gram Panchayat and further that possession of the land in dispute CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE Learned counsel for the petitioner predecessors-in-interest have remained several decades since 1930, i.e. more , i.e. well before the cut-off date Act and hence claimed protection that Khasra No.73 is Jumla Mushtarka Gair Mumkin Abadi and, therefore, therewith. It is further submitted is illegal, that the petitioner demarcation proceedings and that a suit under question of title had already been proceedings were not maintainable lastly contended that the impugned demarcation is prior to institution of proceedings relied upon Siri Krishan v. 2012(68)RCR(Civil)184 in support of his contention CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE Per contra, learned counsel appearing the impugned orders and submitted order dated 29.04.2026 (Annexure reserved for a village school and that the appellant has been found to dispute. PETITIONER petitioner contended that the petitioner remained in possession of the land for more than twelve years prior to date contemplated under Section protection under Section 4(3) of the Act. Mushtarka Malkan land and Khasra therefore, the Gram Panchayat has no submitted that the demarcation dated was not associated with the under Section 13-A of the 1961 Act been instituted, and, therefore, the maintainable. Learned counsel for the impugned orders are perverse as proceedings under Section 7 (2) of the v. Collector, District Rewari, contention. STATE appearing for the respondent(s) ted that the land in dispute vests (Annexure and to petitioner for to Section . Khasra no dated the t the the as the Rewari, respondent(s) s RAMESH MALIK 2026.07.20 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP No. 21306 of 2026 in the Gram disputed land 2(g)(4a) read Khasra No. School; Khasra Mumkin Rasta Gair Mumkin comprising as Gair Mumkin Accordingly, village including petitioner has impugned orders interference devoid of merits OBSERVATIONS 10. 11. have returned arise out of Khasra Nos. Thanesar, District found that the for common CWP No. 21306 of 2026 (O&M) -6- Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for land falls within the definition of read with Section 4 of the Act. The No. 73 (measuring 02 kanal 18 marla) Khasra No. 66 (measuring 00 kanal Rasta; Khasra No. 70 (measuring Mumkin School; and Khasra No. 49 04 kanal 00 marla shown as chahi Mumkin School is recorded as per Jamabandi Accordingly, the land in question is reserved including school and rasta. Learned has failed to establish any lawful orders are speaking and well-reasoned, interference. Accordingly, he prayed that the merits and deserved to be dismissed. OBSERVATIONS & ANALYSIS Heard and record perused. At the outset, it deserves notice returned concurrent findings against of allegations of unauthorized occupation Nos. 73, 66, 70 and 49 situated District Kurukshetra. The authorities the land in question vests in the Gram common village purposes including school for the State submitted that the of ‘Shamlat Deh’ under Section The disputed land comprised in marla) is shown as Gair Mumkin kanal 13 marla) is shown as Gair 11 kanal 18 marla) is shown as (measuring 07 kanal 18 marla) chahi and 03 kanal 18 marla shown Jamabandi for the year 2013-14. reserved for common purposes of the Learned counsel submitted that the lawful right over the land and that the reasoned, and do not warrant any the present civil writ petition is dismissed. notice that all the three revenue courts the petitioner. The proceedings occupation over land comprised in in Village Rattan Dera, Tehsil authorities below have concurrently Gram Panchayat and is reserved school and rasta. The demarcation the Section in Mumkin Gair as ) shown 14. the the the any is courts proceedings in Tehsil concurrently reserved demarcation RAMESH MALIK 2026.07.20 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP No. 21306 of 2026 conducted by occupation passed by the and thereafter 12. that he and land since prior under Section revenue courts of the petitioner's 13. remains unsupported impugned orders examined by categorical finding substantiating possession since petitioner, namely 2003-04 and While the ownership the land partly petitioner's column. Such substantiate CWP No. 21306 of 2026 (O&M) -7- by the revenue authorities was by the petitioner and another the Assistant Collector was affirmed thereafter by the Commissioner in revision. The principal contention raised his predecessors have remained prior to 26.01.1950, and that such Section 4(3) of the 1961 Act. It has courts failed to appreciate the true petitioner's possession. The aforesaid contention does unsupported by any cogent documentary orders reveals that the plea of long by the revenue courts. The Commissioner finding that the petitioner failed substantiating the assertion that he or his since 1930. A perusal of the revenue namely the Jamabandis for the years and 2008-09 (Annexures P-5 to P ownership column records the land partly as Chahi and partly as Gair Mumkin grandfather, Risal Singh, merely Such entries, by themselves, neither the plea that the petitioner or his found to establish unauthorized person. The order of eviction affirmed by the Collector in appeal revision. raised on behalf of the petitioner is remained in possession of the disputed such possession stood protected has further been argued that the nature, character and continuity does not merit acceptance as it documentary evidence. A perusal of the long possession was specifically Commissioner has recorded a failed to produce any revenue record his predecessors had remained in revenue record relied upon by the years 1988-89, 1993-94, 1998-99, P-9), does not advance his case. land as abadi deh and the nature of Mumkin School, the name of the merely appears in the cultivation neither establish ownership nor his predecessors had acquired any orized eviction appeal is disputed protected the continuity it the specifically a record in the 99, case. of the cultivation nor any RAMESH MALIK 2026.07.20 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP No. 21306 of 2026 legally protected possession prior unsupported Court which taken by the finding is either 14. petitioner does proceeds, inter where parali Bench of this Haryana and activities such vacant land Shamlat Deh acts constitute The principle as a Bara, storage treated as evidence the vesting of 15. Section 13-A proceedings under Section CWP No. 21306 of 2026 (O&M) -8- protected right over the disputed prior to 26.01.1950 was also considered unsupported by the record. No material has which may justify taking a view different the revenue courts under the Act either perverse or contrary to the record Even otherwise, the nature of does not advance his case. The inter alia, on the footing that the parali was stored and milch animals this Court in Gram Panchayat and others, 2012(14) RCR (Civil) such as storing fodder, firewood, cow could be regarded as possession Deh. Answering the question in the constitute mere user of the land and not principle enunciated therein lends support storage of parali or tethering of evidence of such settled and juridical of village common land in the Gram The contention regarding pendency A of the 1961 Act is equally devoid proceedings under Section 13-A does not automatically Section 7 non-maintainable. The revenue land. The plea founded upon considered and was found to be has been pointed out before this different from the one concurrently or to demonstrate that the said record. of possession projected by the claim set up by the petitioner the land had been used as a bara animals were tethered. A Division Panchayat Ladhuwas Ahir v. State of (Civil) 602, examined whether cow dung and tethering cattle on possession so as to exclude the land from the negative, it was held that such not possession in the legal sense. support to the view that use of land cattle cannot, by themselves, be juridical possession as would defeat Gram Panchayat. pendency of proceedings under devoid of merit. Mere pendency of automatically render proceedings venue courts have examined the upon be this concurrently said the petitioner ara Division of whether on from such sense. land be defeat under of proceedings the RAMESH MALIK 2026.07.20 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP No. 21306 of 2026 material produced land vests in occupation thereof. has been demonstrated. 16. this Court to noticed that notice by the importantly, solely upon occupation depicting the learned counsel misconceived. orders as they institution subsequent present case prepared on initiated by subsequently, 12.01.2019 Panchayat on thus not based CWP No. 21306 of 2026 (O&M) -9- produced before them and have concurrently in the Gram Panchayat and that thereof. No jurisdictional error or demonstrated. The challenge to the demarcation to exercise writ jurisdiction. The that the demarcation proceedings were the Kanungo and in the presence importantly, the findings recorded by the revenue the demarcation report but also conducted on 12.01.2019 and the nature and user of the land. In counsel for the petitioner upon misconceived. In the said case, this Court they were founded upon a demarcation of proceedings under Section demarcation being undertaken. case is materially different. Here, on 06.01.2018, whereafter proceedings by the private respondents No.6 subsequently, marking of the unauthorized before institution of the second on 06.03.2019. The findings recorded based solely upon the demarcation concurrently concluded that the the petitioner is in unauthorized or perversity in the said findings demarcation report also does not persuade The Commissioner has specifically were conducted after issuance of presence of seventeen persons. More revenue courts are not founded also upon the marking of the illegal and the relevant revenue record In this regard, reliance placed by upon Siri Krishan (supra) is found fault with the impugned demarcation conducted prior to the Section 7 of the Act, without any undertaken. The factual position in the Here, the demarcation report was proceedings under Section 7 were .6 and 7 on 30.03.2018 and, unauthorized occupation was conducted on second application by the Gram recorded by the revenue courts are demarcation dated 06.01.2018. Equally the unauthorized findings persuade specifically of More founded illegal record by is impugned the any the was were and, on Gram are Equally RAMESH MALIK 2026.07.20 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP No. 21306 of 2026 significant is khasra numbers on account claim, as noticed land as a possession over therefore, clearly 17. Punjab, (2011) common lands unauthorized rights. The the revenue reserved for the petitioner 18. that Khasra forms part acceptance. that Khasra Mumkin School Rasta, Khasra School and, measuring 3 CWP No. 21306 of 2026 (O&M) -10- is the fact that it is not the petitioner's numbers belong to him or that the alleged of an incorrect identification noticed earlier, is founded primarily Bara and not upon any assertion over the adjoining land. The ratio clearly distinguishable and does not The Hon'ble Supreme Court (2011) 11 SCC 396, emphasized the lands from encroachments and unauthorized occupation cannot, by itself, said principle assumes significance revenue courts have concurrently found for common village purposes including petitioner has failed to establish any legally Learned counsel for the petitioner No.73 is Jumla Mushtarka Malkan of Gair Mumkin Abadi. The The revenue record relied upon ra No.73 (measuring 2 kanals 18 School, Khasra No.66 (measuring Khasra No.70 (measuring 11 kanals and, out of Khasra No.49 (measuring 3 kanals 18 marlas is recorded - petitioner's case that the adjoining alleged encroachment has arisen of boundaries. The petitioner's primarily upon alleged long user of the assertion of ownership or lawful ratio of Siri Krishan (supra) is, not advance the petitioner's case. in Jagpal Singh v. State of the necessity of protecting village and held that long duration of be treated as a source of legal significance in the present case, where found that the disputed land is including school and rasta and that legally protected right therein tioner has also sought to contend Malkan land and that Khasra No.49 said contention does not merit upon by the revenue courts reflects 18 marlas) is recorded as Gair (measuring 13 marlas) as Gair Mumkin kanals 18 marlas) as Gair Mumkin (measuring 7 kanals 18 marlas), an area recorded as Gair Mumkin School. The adjoining arisen petitioner's the lawful is, of village of legal where is that contend No.49 merit reflects Gair Mumkin Mumkin area The RAMESH MALIK 2026.07.20 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP No. 21306 of 2026 aforesaid entries common village remaining area recorded as denotes cultivable on record to these circumstances, of no assistance. any residential existence of Commissioner, No11799 of Section 2(g)(4 provision, use immaterialif definition of laid down by Commissioner, 19. petitioner, namely, challenge to under Section the disputed have been concurrently CWP No. 21306 of 2026 (O&M) -11- entries leave little room for doubt village purposes and vests in the Gram area measuring 4 kanals comprised ‘Chahi’ in the Jamabandi for the cultivable agricultural land and not to indicate existence of any construction circumstances, the petitioner's reliance assistance. Even in his written statement, residential house in that khasra number of any permanent structure. This Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala of 2026, decided on 03.07.2026, 2(g)(4a) of the Act, observed that use of vacant land situated in abadi immaterialif not owned by any person, and of Shamlat Deh. The said view was by the Division Bench in Gram Panchayat Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, Thus, the principal submissions namely, the plea of long possession to the demarcation proceedings, Section 13-A of the Act and the contention disputed land, have all been duly considered concurrently found against the - that the said land is reserved for Gram Panchayat. As regards the comprised in Khasra No.49, the same is the year 2013-14. The said entry built-up abadi. There is nothing construction over the said portion. In reliance upon the plea of ‘abadi deh’ is statement, it is not his stand that he has number or led any evidence regarding This Court in Dalwinder Singh v. mbala Cantt. and others, CWP , while considering the scope of that after incorporation of the said abadi deh or gorah deh becomes such land would fall within the was rendered following the law Panchayat Village Bir Kalwa v. 2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 505. submissions advanced on behalf of the possession prior to 26.01.1950, the proceedings, the pendency of proceedings contention regarding the nature of considered by the revenue courts and petitioner. This Court finds no for the is entry nothing In is has regarding v. CWP of said becomes the law v. the the proceedings of and no RAMESH MALIK 2026.07.20 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP No. 21306 of 2026 reason to differ 20. Constitution is limited. This No perversity, jurisdictional 21. same is hereby 22. disposed of. 16.07.2026 Ramesh CWP No. 21306 of 2026 (O&M) -12- differ from the conclusions so arrived The scope of interference under Constitution against concurrent findings of This Court does not sit as a court perversity, patent illegality, violation of jurisdictional error has been pointed out so as Consequently, finding no merit hereby dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, of. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Whether Reportable - arrived at. under Articles 226/227 of the fact recorded by revenue courts court of appeal over such findings. of principles of natural justice or as to warrant interference. merit in the present writ petition, the applications, if any, shall also stand (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No the courts findings. or the stand RAMESH MALIK 2026.07.20 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment