Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaikam Deen vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 24 January, 2024
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Lalit Batra
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009800-DB
2024:PHHC:009800-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
116 CWP-1225-2024
Date of Decision: 24.01.2024
Jaikam Deen
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA
----
Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana with
Mr. Saurabh Mago, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
****
Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)
1. The Panchayat land was allegedly encroached, upon, by the
present petitioner, therefore notices become passed upon the petitioner, rather
under Section 24 (1) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, thus, by the
Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned, whereby he was asked to remove
the structures raised on the common passage, but owned and possessed by the
Gram Panchayat concerned.
2. The validities of issuance of notice (supra) has been adjudicated,
upon, by this Court, in a judgment made by this Court, in case titled as
"Karambir and others v/s State of Haryana and others", to which CWP
No.14698 of 2023 has been assigned. The relevant principles which become
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009800-DB
CWP-1225-2024 2024:PHHC:009800-DB
summarized therein and also the conclusions which became drawn by this
Court, are carried in paragraph Nos.5 and 6 thereof, paras whereofs, become
extracted hereinafter:-
"5. Since this Court while deciding CWP-19867-2020 (Annexure
P-11), had summarized the hereinafter principles, which but
cover the common thereto(s) questions of law, as are also
involved in the present writ petition.
(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
and 11 of the Haryana Village Common Land (Regulation)
Act, 1961.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009800-DB
CWP-1225-2024 2024:PHHC:009800-DB
6. Thus, in view of the above summarized principles, it can be
safely concluded, that when the proceedings drawn under Section
24 of 'the 1994 Act', are but summary in nature, and, when but
evidence, in respect of encroachments being made upon the
petition lands, may not surface in the said summary proceedings,
but may surface only in fully contested proceedings, launched
under Section 7 or 11 of the 1961 Act. Therefore, the issuance of
notice(s) (supra) are construable to be made with the completest
lack of application of mind and rather are rendered in a cryptic,
slipshod and in an ill informed manner."
3. The above extracted conclusions, when completely discount the
validity of initiation of proceedings for eviction, by the Sarpanch of the Gram
Panchayat concerned, through the latter invoking the provisions of Section 24
(1) of the Act, (supra), thereupon the Sarpanch of the Panchayat concerned,
has derogated from the mandates (supra), whereupon, the notice (supra) as has
been issued upon the present petitioner, but naturally becomes legally
unjustifiable.
4. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Sarpanch of the Gram
Panchayat concerned, the Collector of the District Collectorate concerned, as
revealed by Annexure P/4, proceeded to appoint the BDPO concerned, to
ensure the execution of the said notice, on the encroachers concerned, but
since obstructions were made to the execution of the said notice, thereby, as
revealed by Annexure P/5, thus, police help was asked for, thus, by the
Executing Officer concerned for ensuring the removal of the encroachments
made upon the common passage.
5. It is stated before this Court by the learned State counsel, that the
notice (supra) has been executed, therefore though thereby, no cause of action
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009800-DB
CWP-1225-2024 2024:PHHC:009800-DB
survives in the present petition, to make a challenge to the notice (supra), as
the same becomes fully executed. Nonetheless since there is breach to the
principles of law, as carried in verdict supra thereby, the BDPO concerned or
the Sarpanch of the Panchayat concerned, are yet directed to forthwith
institute, a petition for eviction against the present petitioner, so that, the
validly made demarcation report in respect of the disputed passage, becomes
sufficiently proven in accordance with law, thus, by its author stepping into
the witness box.
6. The above is necessitated for ensuring, that in case the present
petitioner rather owns land abutting or adjoining to the common passage, that
thereby his eviction as made through Annexure P/5, may not result in his
despite his holding lawful title thereto, thus, becoming perennially evicted
from the disputed land, which ultimately may be revealed to be not owned by
the Gram Panchayat concerned, but rather is revealed to be owned by him.
Furthermore, the above is also necessitated, as, in case the validly made
demarcation report, reveals that the construction, if any, made by him, even if
it is temporarily made, thus, exists on land owned by him, thereby the
Assistant Collector concerned may proceed to, after dismissing the eviction
petition laid, in respect of those portions of the purported common passage,
whereons, still there is some occupation by the present petitioner, thus, declare
that such occupation be permitted to be retained or in case, the construction of
a temporary shed, which has been removed, through Annexure P/5, if found to
be made on land owned by the present petitioner, the same may become
ordered to be reconstructed thereon, through vacant free delivery of
possession, of the disputed land, becoming restored to the present petitioner.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009800-DB
CWP-1225-2024 2024:PHHC:009800-DB
7. It appears that despite this Court, in verdict (supra) summarizing
therein, the above extracted principles, whereby this Court has discounted the
invocation of powers cast, under Section 24 (1) of the Act (supra) thus, by the
Sarpanch of the Panchayat concerned, yet the authority concerned, but making
brazen and arbitrary recourses to the provisions (supra). Moreover, despite the
fact, that no validly prepared demarcation report being rather available with
the Sarpanch concerned, to set forth the motion as contemplated under the
provisions (supra), but yet therebys the notice being galvanized into further
action thus, ultimately leading to purported arbitrary demolitions of structures,
even if, they are revealed in a subsequently made demarcation report, to be so
raised, on land owned rather by the persons concerned.
8. In consequence for obviating the further perpetuation of arbitrary
and brazen misuse of provisions (supra) by the Sapranches concerned, this
Court makes a direction, upon, the Registry of this Court to forthwith transmit
the verdict (supra) to the Principal Secretary (Revenue), to the Government of
Punjab and also to the Principal Secretary (Revenue), to the Government of
Haryana, who shall thereafter transmit the same to all the Panchayats
concerned, so that complete compliance thereto thus, is made by all
concerned. Compliance affidavit be sworn by the afore, in respect of the
above, besides also in respect of the number of the notices (supra) becoming
issued and action taking thereons. The above be done within two months
hereafter. Furthermore, if no actions have been taken on such arbitrarily issued
notices, thereupon, it shall be ensured that no further action is taken thereons
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009800-DB
CWP-1225-2024 2024:PHHC:009800-DB
rather, the encroachments made on the land owned by the Gram Panchayat
concerned shall be ensured to be removed, but only through therein,
recoursing the statutory provisions as engrafted in the relevant statutes rather
than making recourse to the statutory provisions (supra). In regard to the
above also echoings be made in the respectively furnished compliance
affidavits (supra).
9. Disposed of accordingly.
10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
24.01.2024 (LALIT BATRA)
Varinder Prashad JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009800-DB
6 of 6
