Commissioner's Revisional Power Under Section 13-B of Haryana Village Common Lands Act is Limited to Cases Involving Title Disputes: Punjab & Haryana High Court - 2025-10-01

High Court Clarifies Commissioner's Revisional Jurisdiction in Land Encroachment Cases, Quashes 25-Year-Old Remand Order

Chandigarh – In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of revisional powers under the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a Commissioner cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction in simple eviction matters where no question of title is involved.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri quashed a 25-year-old order passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, which had remanded an encroachment case for the fourth time. The Court affirmed the original eviction orders, bringing a protracted legal battle dating back to 1993 to a close.

Case Background: A Three-Decade Dispute

The case originated from a plea by petitioner Hukmi, who alleged that respondent Mukandi had encroached upon a 11-foot-wide public passage (khasra No. 198) in village Harnampura, District Jind, by constructing a house on a part of it. Hukmi initiated proceedings in 1993 under Section 7 of the Act for the removal of this encroachment.

The matter saw a convoluted journey through the revenue courts:

- An Assistant Collector ordered eviction based on a Local Commissioner's demarcation report.

- The Collector upheld this eviction order in an appeal filed by the respondent.

- Aggrieved, the respondent filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, who, in a 1999 order, set aside the concurrent findings and remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector for a fresh demarcation.

This 1999 remand order was challenged by the original petitioner, Hukmi, in the present writ petition before the High Court.

Legal Question: The Scope of Revisional Power

The central issue before the High Court was whether the Commissioner had the jurisdiction under Section 13-B(2) of the Act to entertain the revision petition. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner's power is restricted to cases where a question of title is formally raised and decided under the proviso to Section 7(1) of the Act. The respondents contended that the Commissioner holds broad, suo motu powers to review any order for legality and propriety.

Court's Analysis and Precedent

The High Court embarked on a detailed analysis of Section 13-B of the Act, noting conflicting judgments from previous Division Benches on the same issue.

• One line of judgments, including Leela Ram v. Gram Panchayat , held that the Commissioner's revisional jurisdiction is barred in simple eviction cases where no title dispute is raised.
• A contrary view, taken in cases like Rulia Khan v. State of Haryana and Orion Infrastructure Limited , suggested that the phrase "call for the record... to satisfy himself as to the legality or propriety" granted the Commissioner wide-ranging powers, even in non-title matters, to prevent statutory language from being rendered redundant.

The Bench, in a detailed interpretative exercise, chose to resolve this conflict without referring it to a larger bench. Justice Thakur, writing for the bench, concluded that the view taken in Rulia Khan was per incuriam (passed in ignorance of a binding statute or authority).

The Court reasoned that Section 13-B creates two distinct remedies: an appeal to the Collector for standard eviction orders (Section 13-B(1)) and a revision to the Commissioner for orders specifically passed after deciding a title dispute (Section 13-B(2)).

The judgment emphasized a harmonious construction of the statute:

"The revisional jurisdiction conferred through sub-Section (2) of Section 13-B... has to be exercised by the Commissioner, thus vis-a-vis an order passed under the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of the Act of 1961. [...] The subsequent thereto statutory coinages... are to be aligned or are to be read with in conjunction with the first segment."

The Court explained that separating the two components of Section 13-B(2) would blur the "fine distinction" between appellate and revisional jurisdiction, a distinction fundamental to procedural law.

Final Verdict and Implications

Applying this principle to the facts, the Court found that the respondent had never raised a formal question of title over the encroached land before the Assistant Collector. The proceedings were a "simpliciter petition for eviction." Consequently, the only remedy available against the Collector's order was not a revision to the Commissioner.

The High Court declared the Commissioner's exercise of jurisdiction as "non est" (non-existent in law) and quashed the impugned remand order of 1999.

"No revisional jurisdiction became conferred upon the Commissioner concerned, in his maintaining the said petition, and, also his through the impugned order deciding the same. As such, the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the learned Commissioner concerned, is non est, wherebys the impugned order also consequently becomes non est."

The Court reinstated the eviction order passed by the Assistant Collector in 1997 and affirmed by the Collector in 1998, directing the authorities to remove the encroachment. The ruling provides crucial clarity on the jurisdictional limits of revenue authorities under the Act, aiming to curb endless cycles of litigation in land encroachment matters.