Puran Singh v. State Of Haryana And Others
!" #$%$!&'())
*
+ ,%-% *
' ./
*) */*// ./
*) *
!
"#$ &&&& /*//0) 1 ' (
)$
*))
+ (
!
%) * +
"#$ ))!
+ !
,-$ - .$ ")$
$$+) % 12(3 /$ (!
". 0
!
1 $!
,-$ - .$ ")$ % * +
0 22
". !
" ))$ 3 !
)!
, -
)) + ((
+ ) *
)) + ((
+ )
% :
%
%
;2 "$;!
4
))*
-$(
)
))+ :
". :!
<0))$!
2 :
". 7!
((!
"(,
/#!
"(, !
,
#
( =% % $ $
- $
4
#(
( + 2 2 ) !
$(
<2 +# 2?72??
@( . , . 2??!
# # $% ) %
$ ( A ( $
# " )
)$ -$( ( $ !
%!
,>
)$ "$ $) ( ,)
" ))$!
!
# 0 22
))*
$!
4
!
)+
!
$
+# 2?7 2??
B-$( %(
$( ! C
$
"
))++ 0 22
0
$$ ))$!
# ? 227 )
)+
$
% # $( %
%!
+
)$ -$( ,)$ (
B#$ D A
$$ 27
% %
"$
))+ ? 227
". !
$
$ ((!
"(,
/# # 2 :
". 0 +
( - $ $ $
$ -$(
)$ ,+ %!
( ))$!
)!
$ ( (!
%
%%+
+
2 : ((!
"(,
/#
))+
7702 9*#!
( + 2 : %
) $) % +
* )
), + ,% ))$!
+
))+
))
- $
(
% $ ))$!
# : !
+ + -$( #
))++ : !
$
$ ((!
"(,
/# 2 : !
)+ -$(
%%(+ %+
+# )
!
!
))+ > "++# %( *
%) 8 $ ) ,(
+
*
# !
$,
!
% "$
$ $) (
#!
#
))++ ? 227
+ ,)
#+ " + !
#
+# ) > !
% ,(!
# #
$(( #)) + ( + !
$!
!
+ % - $ 8 $ )
$ )# +
%$ 7 ?
0
*))
:
3 ,(
,> )
0"
"$ 2
$ )
+ +
%)
,)
$ $ 4
+#
) %!
$ ( A %
>
#
%$ $ )
7 ?
0
# )
:
2?72??
,> ) ) $ $ !
$
$) ) $
)
$) ( + + *
/ ) > (
) (
8 $ ) ,) $
$ ( $ $
* ) #
(
1+ 2?72??
"+ (
)
,)$ ( $
+
#$ %( $+
+ ( #
(!
$ -$
,+
It would indeed a travesty of law to allow the petitioner to continue to hold on the land in question merely on the ground as is sought to be projected. At this stage, it is useful to refer to decision of this High Court in Ram Piari v. Joint Director Panchayats (Pb.), 1993(2) RRR 351 and Rajdev Singh and another v. Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2012(2) RCR (Civil) 623. In the said cases, proceedings for ejectment of the unauthorized occupants in respect to the Shamilat land had been initiated in the Public Premises Act. The ground taken by unauthorized occupants was that it is only proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 Act which could have been initiated and proceedings undertaken in the Public Premises Act are illegal. In the case of Ram Piari (supra) while holding that Shamilat land belonging to the Gram Panchayat is public premises, the proceedings under the Public Premises Act could not
be termed illegal. It was observed that;
E7. Under both the Acts, i.e., the Common Lands Act and the Eviction Act, the procedure for eviction from the shamilat deh or other Panchayat land is almost similar. The right to appeal is also the same. The procedure for determination of the dispute is also the same. The petitioners have not been able to show that the procedure of ejectment under Section 5 of the Eviction Act is in any way less favourable or more harsh to the petitioners. It is not shown that prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by recourse to the proceedings under Section 5 of the Eviction Act instead of the Common Lands Act.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the view that the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, and the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961; are special Acts and the Eviction Act does not exclude the application of the Common Lands Act. Unauthorized occupants can be evicted under both the Acts. The law at the present moment provides more than one remedy to a Panchayat for evicting the unauthorized occupants.
Where two modes of eviction are provided and the Panchayat adopts one of the modes to eject an unauthorized occupant, which appears to the Panchayat to be more speedy, summary and effective, then it cannot be contended with any justification that the situation created offends against the right of a citizen as guaranteed to him under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As Government forms a class by itself and a speedier and more effective procedure can be provided for the Government to take action against the unauthorized occupants of its property, what is true about the Government is equally true about a Gram Panchayat which is a unit of the local self Government.
9. It has been established in due enquiry held by the competent officer that the land, in dispute, belongs to the Gram Panchayat.
7 The petitioners singularly failed to establish that they were the owners of the land, in dispute. The land, in dispute, is owned by the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners were, therefore, clearly in unauthorized occupation of the land, in dispute.F Going by the same analogy in the present case also, learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to point out any document on record, which would indicate any right, whatsoever, which the petitioner has to continue in possession of the Gram Panchayat land. In the given facts and circumstances, we do not find any ground, whatsoever, to interfere for setting aside the impugned orders, which are accordingly upheld.
No other argument has been addressed.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
/*//
()) 6 ) 1+C GC< ,) GC<