1. Unauthorized occupation of land earmarked for public utility like schools cannot be legalized, especially when no alternative land is available for the school's playground. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 187
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
The State of Haryana and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Satpal & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2984-2985 of 2022 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 7279-7280 of 2022) (@ Diary No. 1410 of 2018)
Decided On : 03-03-2023
Important Points
Unauthorized occupation on land earmarked for specific purposes cannot be legalized under relevant laws.
Subject
Property Law - Land Disputes
Act Referred
PUNJAB VILLAGE COMMON LANDS REGULATION ACT: S.7(2)
PUNJAB VILLAGE COMMON LANDS REGULATION RULES: R.12
PUNJAB VILLAGE COMMON LANDS REGULATION RULES: R.12
Headnote
UNAUTHORIZED POSSESSION - Land Dispute - Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961, Rule 12 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964 - The court discussed the unauthorized possession of land belonging to the Gram Panchayat and the legal provisions under the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961. The court also considered Rule 12 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964, which allows for the sale of non-cultivable land in Shamlat Deh to inhabitants of a village. The court's decision was influenced by these provisions as it quashed the High Court's direction to legalize unauthorized occupation and possession.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Haryana sought to appeal against a judgment allowing individual encroachers on Gram Panchayat land to be considered for appropriate action. The High Court had directed the consideration of market value and exchange of land under Rule 12.Finding of the Court:
The court found that unauthorized occupation and possession made by original writ petitioners on land earmarked for school premises/playground cannot be legalized. It granted a 12-month period for vacation.Issues:
Unauthorized possession, legality of occupation, and directions issued by the High Court were key issues.Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that there cannot be any school without a playground and quashed the direction to legalize unauthorized occupation.Final Decision:
The appeals were allowed to the extent that original writ petitioners were granted 12 months’ time to vacate the occupied land.Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Mudgal, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Amrita Verma, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv.
For the Respondent(sssssssssssssssssssss) Mr. Surender Deswal, Adv. Mr. Abhaya Nath Das, Adv. Mr. S S Bandyopadhyay, Adv. Ms. Beena, Adv. Mr. Rahul Singh, Adv. Mr. V K Shukla, Adv. Ms. Riya Soni, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Mudgal, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Amrita Verma, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv.
For the Respondent(sssssssssssssssssssss) Mr. Surender Deswal, Adv. Mr. Abhaya Nath Das, Adv. Mr. S S Bandyopadhyay, Adv. Ms. Beena, Adv. Mr. Rahul Singh, Adv. Mr. V K Shukla, Adv. Ms. Riya Soni, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Unauthorized possession of land specifically reserved for public utility purposes cannot be legalized through monetary compensation or land exchange if it impairs the utility's function. (Para 4 )
3. High Court order quashed — Unauthorized occupants granted twelve months to vacate land or face removal by appropriate authorities. (Para 5 )
4. Can unauthorized possession of Gram Panchayat land be legalized under Rule 12 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964?
Generally, non-cultivable land in Shamlat Deh may be sold to village inhabitants who constructed houses before March 31, 2000, provided they have no other residential house and the area is up to 200 sq. yards. However, this does not apply to land earmarked for public utilities. (Para 4 )
5. Is the legalization of unauthorized occupation permissible if the land is earmarked for a school and playground?
No. Land reserved for school premises and playgrounds cannot be legalized for unauthorized occupation because students are entitled to a proper environment, and a school cannot function without a playground. (Para 4 )
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 12.05.2016 in C.W.P. No. 3167 of 2015 and the order dated 21.10.2016 passed in Review application No. 284 of 2016 in CWP No. 3167 of 2015, the State of Haryana and Ors. have preferred the present appeals.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:-
2.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the contesting respondents are in unauthorized possession of the land comprising Khasra Nos. 61/2 and 62, which belong to the Gram Panchayat. On the Application of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, a Demarcation was carried out with regard to Khasra Nos. 61/2 and 62 in which the unauthorized possession of the respondents-original writ petitioners has been shown.
2.2 Eviction proceedings were initiated on 25.03.2009 by filing the ejectment application under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act. Assistant Collector passed the ejectment order dated 30.08.2011 against the contesting respondents.
2.3 Aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2011, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Collector, Yamuna Nagar, which came to be rejected by order dated 02.05.2012. Further appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division also came to be rejected by order dated 04.07.2014.
2.4 The contesting respondents preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 3167 of 2015 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for quashing the orders dated 30.08.2011, 02.05.2012 and 04.07.2014.
2.5 When the matter came up for preliminary hearing before the High Court on 23.02.2015, it was stated that the land encroached upon by the original writ petitioners is part of the school premises and they are ready and willing to give equivalent vacant land in exchange, to the Gram Panchayat out of Khasra No.63, which also adjoins the school premises and which can, thus, be utilized as a playground of the school. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, notices came to be issued by the High Court in the writ petition.
2.6 It appears that there was a dispute with regard to the total area under occupation of the original writ petitioners, a fresh demarcation was directed to be conducted under the supervision of the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court. Pursuant thereto, the Local Commissioner submitted his report which established beyond doubt that the original writ petitioners are under unauthorized possession of the Gram Panchayat land.
2.7 Faced with the report of the Local Commissioner, the original writ petitioners reiterated / re-stated before the High Court that the original writ petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are ready and willing to give the land to Gram Panchayat equal to double the extent of the encroached land and other petitioners are willing to pay its market price as may be got assessed by the Gram Panchayat.
2.8 The High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 12.05.2016 directed the newly constituted Gram Panchayat to consider the claim of the individual encroachers on merits and take appropriate decision. That thereafter, taking into consideration Rule 12 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964, directed that the Gram Panchayat may, with the prior approval of the State Government, sell its non-cultivable land in Shamlat Deh to the inhabitants of the village, who have constructed their houses on or before 31st March, 2000, provided that they do not have any residential house and further provided that the constructed area or an appurtenant area upto a maximum of 200 sq. yards. The said lands were to be sold at not less than the Collector rate, i.e., floor rate or market rate, whichever is higher. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with such direction.
2.9 By directing the parties to invoke powers under Rule 12 and determine the market value of the land to the extent to which it is under occupation of the original writ petitioners, name
