Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satyabir vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153541
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-31010-2014 (O&M)
Date of decision : 18.11.2024
.11.2024
SATYABIR
...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present : Mr. Anil Kumar Rana,, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Upasana Dhawan, A.A.G., Haryana.
HARSH BUNGER, J. [ORAL]
Petitioner (Satyabir)) has filed the instant writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia
alia,, seeking a writ in the nature
of mandamus,
mandamus, directing respondents No.2 and 4 to pass an appropriate
speaking order as per Section 51(3)(b) and 51(3)(c) of the Haryana Panchayati
Raj Act, 1994 to suspend/remove Sarpanch (respondent No.6) and Panch
(respondent
nt No.7) of Gram Panchayat, Village Talot, Tehsil Narnaul, District
Mahendergarh, Haryana, from their positions.
2. Briefly, in the year 2022, respondent
espondent No
Nos.. 6 and 7 herein were
elected as Sarpanch and Panch,
Panch respectively of Gram Panchayat,,
Village
illage Talot, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh. It is stated that at the
time of elections, an affidavit as well as declarations were filed by
respondent
espondent Nos.
No . 6 and 7 herein that they have not encroached upon
Gram Panchayat's
Panchayat land.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153541
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he filed an application dated
24.04.2024 before the concerned Tehsildar seeking demarcation of Gram
Panchayat land, whereupon a demarcation was carried out and as per
demarcation report dated 01.05.2024 (Annexure P-5), it was revealed that
family members of respondents No. 6 and 7 herein had encroached upon
Gram Panchayat's land by constructing pucca houses and respondents No.
6 and 7 were residing therein.
3.1 It is stated that on the basis of this demarcation report dated
01.05.2024 (Annexure P-5), petitioner filed a complaint dated 29.05.2024
(Annexure P-6) to Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul to take appropriate
action against respondents No. 6 and 7, under section 51(3)(b) and 51(3)(c)
of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (in short 'the 1994 Act'); however no
action has been taken. Hence, the present writ petition.
4. Heard.
5. Having considered the contentions of the learned counsel for
the petitioner, I am of the considered view that there are certain disputed
questions of fact involved in the instant petition, as are also in the
demarcation report (Annexure P-5), and the said disputed questions of fact,
cannot be settled in the present proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India. It is not disputed before this Court that the so-called
encroachers (who are stated to be related to respondents No. 6 and 7) were
not present at the time of demarcation and neither any eviction order has
been passed against the so-called encroachers by any Court of competent
jurisdiction. It is also not disputed that in terms of Section 7 of the Haryana
Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short "the 1961 Act"),
any resident of the village can also seek eviction of unauthorised occupants
on Gram Panchayat's land. It goes without saying that upon a lawful order
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153541
of eviction being passed against the encroachers concerned and with further
evidence that the encroachers are not only related to respondents No. 6 and
7 but are also amenable to action by competent authorities for their removal
or suspension, from their democratically elected offices in terms of judicial
pronouncement in case of Janabai v. Additional Commissioner, 2018 AIR
(SC) 5068.
6. Thus, at this stage, this Court, does not deem it fit and
appropriate to determine the aforesaid disputed question(s) of fact.
7. In the above circumstances, the present petition is dismissed;
however, leaving it open to the petitioner to institute appropriate
proceedings (if so advised), for eviction of encroachers from Gram
Panchayat's land under Section 7 of the 1961 Act and upon an eviction
order being passed against the encroachers, the petitioner would also be at
liberty to approach the concerned/competent authority under the 1994 Act,
for passing of an appropriate order of removal/suspension upon the errant
Panch or the Sarpanch concerned, in case, they become amenable to such
action in terms of judgment rendered in Janabai's case (supra).
8. All pending applications (if any) shall also stand closed.
November 18, 2024 (HARSH BUNGER)
gurpreet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
