IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) L.P.A.No.1006 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Order: 06.10.2012
Net Ram and others ...Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
(2) Civil Writ Petition No.9686 of 2012
Net Ram and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector
Narnaul, District Mahendergarh and
others. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL
Present: Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Deepak Girotra, AAG, Haryana,
for respondents no.1 to 7 (in LPA No.1006 of 2012)
and
for respondents no.1 and 2 (in CWP No.9686 of 2012).
Mr. S.R.Hooda, Advocate,
for respondent no.8 (in LPA No.1006 of 2012)
and
for respondent no.3 (in CWP No.9686 of 2012).
RAJIVE BHALLA, J.
C.M.No.2669 of 2012 Prayer in this application is to condone delay of 82 days in filing the appeal.
Heard.
For reasons stated in the application, delay of 82 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
C.M.No.2670 of 2012 Allowed as prayed for.
L.P.A.No.1094 of 2012(O&M)
By way of this order, we shall dispose of L.P.A.No.1006 of 2012 and Civil Writ Petition No.9686 of 2012, as they involve adjudication of the same questions of fact and law.
The appellants pray that order dated 28.03.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge, may be set aside.
The short point that arises for adjudication is whether the impugned order can be construed to be a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Mahendergarh, to dispossess the appellants, remove alleged unauthorised encroachments and demolish the front portion of their houses, without resort to procedure prescribed by law.
The Gram Panchayat, by alleging, that the petitioners have encroached upon a public path, filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to 'the 1961 Act'), for their eviction. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Narnaul, dismissed the petition on 28.02.2012, by holding that as the land, in dispute, is outside "Abadi Deh", does not fall within the definition of "Shamilat Deh", and, there is no obstacle in the 'Rasta', as the petitioners' houses were constructed prior to enforcement of the relevant law. The Gram Panchayat filed an appeal before the Collector, Mahendergarh. During pendency of the appeal, respondents no.9 and 10, filed Civil Writ Petition No.3361 of 2011, by concealing order dated 28.02.2012 and pendency of an appeal, The writ petition was disposed of, on 28.03.2012, in the following terms:-
"In view of the above, Deputy Commissioner, Mahendergarh at Narnaul (respondent no.3) is directed to comply with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh's case (supra) as well as order dated 28.4.2010 (Annexure P-6), within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after making yet another proper demarcation on the spot and submits his report to this Court."
A perusal of the order reveals that dismissal of the petition under Section 7 of the 1961 Act and pendency of the appeal by the Gram Panchayat, were concealed from the learned Single Bench. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge were misconstrued as a license to disregard procedure for eviction and have led to demolition of the front portion of the petitioners' houses. It would be necessary to clarify that neither the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2011 AIR (SC) 1123, directing State Governments to prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land, nor the order passed by the learned Single Judge have directed authorities to disregard procedure for eviction, prescribed by the 1961 Act or by the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. As a result, LPA No.1006 of 2012 is disposed of with the above observations/clarifications.
As regards Civil Writ Petition No.9686 of 2012, which has been tagged with the Letters Patent Appeal, it would be necessary to point out that in view of order dated 28.03.2012, which was passed without informing the court that the petition filed by the Gram Panchayat, under Section 7 of the 1961 Act, had been dismissed and an appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat is pending adjudication, the Collector passed the following order, in appeal:-
"All the parties were heard and the evidence on file was perused. This case was listed for orders for today. Mahender Singh proforma respondent no.5 has produced the certified copy of the order dated 28.03.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. This order has been passed in Civil Writ Petition No.3361 of 2011 and as per this the illegal encroachment on disputed land in khasra no.110 has to be got removed within a period of 1 month from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. As per the aforesaid orders of the High Court, the undersigned is bound to take action. So further proceedings of this Court in this case are discontinued and the compliance of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court is being made."
The Collector misconstrued order dated 28.03.2012 and discontinued the hearing of the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat. The appeal was filed by the Gram Panchayat against an order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Narnaul, holding that there is no encroachment in the passage. The Collector was, therefore, duty bound to have decided the appeal, irrespective of the fact, that the alleged encroachments were removed. The petitioners, could validly urge that as their houses do not encroach upon the path, they have been wrongly demolished and should be rebuilt.
In this view of the matter, we allow Civil Writ Petition No.9686 of 2012, set aside order passed by the Collector, restore the appeal to the office of Collector, Narnaul, and direct him to decide the appeal, in accordance with law, within three months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, Parties are directed to appear before the Collector, Narnaul, on 08.11.2012. In case the Collector arrives at a conclusion that there was no encroachment and the petitioners' houses have been wrongly demolished, he would be at liberty to pass such consequential orders, as may be necessary.
(RAJIVE BHALLA) (REKHA MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
October 06, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment