SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(SC) 51

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
JOGINDER AND ANOTHER – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1829 OF 2021
Decided On : 05-02-2021.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rishi Malhotra, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Persons in illegal occupation of Government Land/Panchayat Land cannot, as a matter of right, claim regularization. Regularization of illegal occupation of Government Land/Panchayat Land can only be as per policy of State Government and conditions stipulated in Rules.

Headnote:

(A) Land Laws – Regularization of illegal occupation of Government Land/Panchayat Land – Persons in illegal occupation of Government Land/Panchayat Land cannot, as a matter of right, claim regularization – Regularization of illegal occupation of Government Land/Panchayat Land can only be as per policy of State Government and conditions stipulated in Rules – If it is found that conditions stipulated for regularisation have not been fulfilled, such persons in illegal occupation of Government Land/Panchayat Land are not entitled to regularization – An applicant who seeks benefit of policy must comply with its terms. (Para 8)

(B) Land Laws – Eviction of illegal occupants from Panchayat land – Competent authority after giving opportunity of personal hearing to writ petitioners and on perusal of record and the site report which was verified by visiting relevant place found that petitioner no.1 was in illegal occupation of area admeasuring 757.37 square yards and petitioner no. was found to be in illegal occupation of area admeasuring 239.48 square yards, rejected prayer petitioners to sell land in exercise of powers under Rule 12(4) of 1964 Rules – Competent authority has specifically observed and held that conditions mentioned in Rule 12(4) of 1964 Rules have not been satisfied – Illegal occupation of Panchayat land can be regularised provided area of illegal occupation is up to a maximum of 200 square yards – It includes constructed area, open space up to 25% of constructed area or appurtenant area – In case of an illegal occupation of area up to a maximum of 200 square yards including constructed area, appurtenant area and open space area can be regularised and sold at not less than collector rate (floor rate or market rate, whichever is higher) – Competent authority as well as High Court both are justified in taking view that as respective petitioners are in illegal occupation of area more than required area up to a maximum of 200 square yards, they are not entitled to benefit of Rule 12(4) – Petitioners are found to be in illegal occupation of area of more than 200 square yards – As such, one of conditions mentioned in Rule 12(4) is not satisfied – Even if there is construction same is required to be removed and possession of land must be handed back to Gram Panchayat – Special Leave Petition dismissed. (Paras 7, 8, 9 and 10)

Facts of the case:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 10.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 17869 of 2020, by which the High Court has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the petitioners herein, the original writ petitioners have preferred the present special leave petition.

Findings of Court:

Policy which was formulated by the State Government which culminated in Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules specifically contained a stipulation to the effect that the illegal/unauthorised occupation up to a maximum of 200 square yards only can be sold on regularisation and on fulfilment of other conditions mentioned in Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules. The petitioners are found to be in illegal occupation of the area of more than 200 square yards. Therefore, one of the conditions mentioned in Rule 12(4) is not satisfied.

Result : Special Leave Petition dismissed.

ORDER :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 10.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 17869 of 2020, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the petitioners herein, the original writ petitioners have preferred the present special leave petition.

2. That the petitioners who are the residents of Village Sarsad, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat encroached upon the panchayat land and constructed the houses. It is not in dispute that the lands on which the petitioners have constructed the houses vest in the Gram Panchayat. That in the year 2000, the Government of Haryana framed a policy regarding sale of panchayat land in unauthorised possession inside outside the Abadi Deh. The Government of Haryana also amended the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1964 Rules’) and issued a notification dated 1.8.2001 in this regard. Thereafter, in the year 2008, Rule 12(4) was incorporated in the 1964 Rules in terms of the notification dated 03.01.2008, which authorises Gram Panchayat to sell its non-cultivable land in Shamlat Deh to the inhabitants of the village who have constructed their houses on or before 31.03.2000, subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules. Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules, which is relevant in the present case, reads as under:

    “Rule 12(1) A Panchayat may, with the previous approval of the State Government, sell land in shamlat deh vested in it under the Act for—

    (4) The Gram Panchayat may with the prior approval of the State Government, sell its noncultivable land in shamlat deh to the inhabitants of the village who have constructed their houses on or before the 31st March, 2000, not resulting in any obstruction to the traffic and passerby, along with open space up to 25% of the constructed area or an appurtenant area up to a maximum of 200 square yards at not less than collector rate [floor rate or market rate, whichever is higher].”

Thus, as per Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules, the construction of the house on the panchayat land must have been put on or before 31.03.2000. It must be a noncultivable land; does not result in any obstruction to the traffic and passerby and the illegal occupation/constructed area shall be up to a maximum of 200 square yards and then only the same can be regularised/sold.

3. The petitioners herein submitted the application before the competent authority along with the resolution of the concerned panchayat and requested to sell the lands occupied by them illegally and unauthorizedly, in exercise of powers under Rule 12, more particularly Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules. After giving an opportunity of personal hearing, the competent authority, i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat on perusal of the record and the site report, which was verified by visiting the relevant place and having found that the petitioners are in illegal occupation of the area admeasuring more than 200 square yards, i.e.757.37 square yards in case of the petitioner-Joginder and 239.48 square yards in case of the petitioner-Karamveer, rejected the said application. The order passed by the competent authority rejecting the application of the petitioners came to be challenged by the petitioners before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition. While dismissing the writ petition, the High Court has also considered the decision of this Court in the case of Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396, by which this Court directed to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of the villagers of the vil

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top