Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pratp Singh And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Others on 2 August, 2024
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099099-DB
CWP No. 18317 of 2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
114
CWP No. 18317 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 2nd August, 2024
Pratp Singh and another ..Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present: Mr. J.S. Yadav, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana with
Mr. Saurabh Mago, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
****
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
1. Challenge is to the notices issued under Section 24(2) of
Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 dated 28.8.2023 (Annexures P-10 &
P-11) whereby the petitioners have been asked to remove the blockage of
2 feet wall.
2. A perusal of the paper book would show that prior to order
passed on 28.08.2023, a show cause notice was issued on 04.08.2023 to
remove the blockage of two feet wall and also to explain any objections.
Apparently, petitioner No.2 filed a reply that notice has been issued to
him and his brother Pratap Singh on 4.8.2023 and 6.8.2023. It is
mentioned in the reply that on 16.06.2018, a demarcation was conducted
of Khasra Number 125 (Firni) and as per report, the wall has been
removed. It is further mentioned that demarcation has been carried on
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099099-DB
12.6.2023 and again the wall has been shown as encroached and
therefore, objection was taken as on which demarcation was treated to be
right and a consideration was sought for supply of the subsequent
demarcation report.
3. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of
Division Bench/Coordinate Bench in Gram Panchayat Thandran
Versus State of Haryana and others 2023(3) RCR (Civil) 325, to
contend that action should be initiated under the Haryana Village
Common Lands (Regulation) Act and therefore summary proceedings as
such were liable to be quashed.
4. However, in view of defence taken as such of the present
petitioners, it is apparent that there is nothing much to say that since
judgment relied upon itself provides that if there is a demarcation report
as such, the Gram Panchayat can proceed in the summary manner
against the person. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:
''15. Before parting, it is deemed imperative to hereafter cull
certain relevant principles of law.
(i) The exercising of jurisdiction by the Gram Panchayat
concerned, through recoursing the relevant mandate(s) of
Section 24 of the 1994 Act, may be a validly adopted
recourse, but only when prior to the makings of the
apposite notice, a valid demarcation of the sites
concerned, is conducted, and, such notice is validly served
upon the respondents concerned.
(ii) The consequent thereto drawing(s) of actions against the
encroachers concerned, who raise constructions, upon the
vacant places within the abadi deh, may also be a validly
drawing action(s), but only when even prior thereto a valid
demarcation of the sites concerned, is conducted by competent
Revenue Officer:
(iii) The proceedings drawn under Section 24 of the 1994
Act, are summary in nature, thus recourse thereto may be
avoided by the Gram Panchayat concerned, especially
when evidence in respect of the lands concerned, falling
within or outside the ambit of the apposite inclusionary
clause, is required to be adduced, and, when such evidence
may surface, not in summary proceedings, but may surface
in fully contested proceedings, launched under Section 7
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099099-DB
or 11 of the Haryana Village Common Land (Regulation)
Act, 1961.
16. Disposed of in the above terms.''
5. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that
apparently on an earlier occasion also it seems that there was some
encroachment and having been repeated the Gram Panchayat has been
forced to look into the issue again and to issue the requisite notice and
take the steps in accordance with law. Accordingly, no interference is
called for in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Dismissed in-limini.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
2nd August, 2024 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
reema JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
3 of 3
