Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajbala vs State Of Haryana And Others on 4 May, 2022
-1-
CWP No.9228 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.9228 of 2022
Date of decision : 04.05.2022
Rajbala
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Nipun Vashist, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 27.01.2022
(Annexure P-11) passed by the Commissioner, Gurugram Division,
Gurugram, whereby the revision petition filed by respondent No.5 - Braham
Prakash son of Banwari Lal has been allowed setting aside the order dated
28.03.2018 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade,
Kosli, dismissing the application of respondent No.5 filed by him under
Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961,
vide which he had sought eviction of the petitioner and order dated
23.10.2018 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Collector, District Rewari,
dismissing the appeal of respondent No.5 and remitting the case back to the
Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kosli, with a direction to decide the matter
afresh by hearing both the side and getting the land in question demarcated
properly and that too, in his personal presence.
1 of 3
CWP No.9228 of 2022
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority is unsustainable as
well-reasoned order was passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kosli,
dismissing the application for eviction preferred by respondent No.5 as also
the order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the Collector, District Rewari
dismissing the appeal. It is contended that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade,
Kosli, proceeded on the well-defined report of demarcation which was
carried out during the pendency of the proceedings before it and considering
such demarcation, which has been carried out through Differential Global
Positioning System (DGPS) machine, returned a finding that the petitioner
was not in illegal/unauthorized possession of khasra No.180. It is
contended that the findings, which have been recorded by the revenue
authorities, could not have been unsettled by the Revisional Authority on
conjunctures and surmises and therefore, impugned order dated 27.01.2022
(Annexure P-11) passed by the Commissioner, Gurugram Division,
Gurugram, cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside.
This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot
be accepted in the light of the well-reasoned and justified order dated
27.01.2022 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Revisional Authority, where, in
para 6 thereof, it has been stated as follows:-
"6. The original order of Collector remitting the case on
the ground that demarcation was four years old
demarcation, is also without any jurisdiction. Even civil
court judgment regarding demarcation was also ignored.
However, this was not challenged and new demarcation
2 of 3
CWP No.9228 of 2022
was conducted. But any new demarcation must be fair to
all the parties and be clear in its finding and explanation
with proper procedure. It should also mention all
persons in unauthorized possession instead of mentioning
some owners are not in unauthorized possession. The
demarcation must show and explain the road/street when
revisionist is claiming that encroachment is in the middle
of the road."
The above observations of the Revisional Authority being
based upon the records and the same required fresh decision by the revenue
authorities, the said authority was justified in remitting back the case to the
Assistant Collector 11st Grade, Kosli. The Revisional Authority is fully
justified in directing the Assistant Collector 1st Grade to get fresh
demarcation conducted in his personal presence so that the true picture with
regard to the encroachment, if any, on khasra No.180 stands established as
to whether it is so or not?
In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ
petition, the same stands dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
04.05.2022 (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
Harish JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
