The concept of co-sharer cannot be used to claim consideration for land allotment under unauthorized occupation, and occupation exceeding the limit specified in Rule 12(4) is not entitled to regularization.

JUDGMENT :

JASWANT SINGH, J.

1. Present petition has been filed by two petitioners, namely, Joginder and Karamveer for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 06.10.2020 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, (Panchayat), Sonepat, rejecting their claim for regularization of construction of their houses on the shamlat land under Rule 12(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Rules, 1964. They have further sought issuance of a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to consider their claim under the said Rule, in the light of various judgments passed by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

2. Briefly encapsulated, the facts of this case are that the petitioners constructed their houses on the land situated between ‘Lal Dora’ and ‘Phirni’ of the village which admittedly falls under the ownership of the Gram Panchayat, Village Sirsad, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat. They alongwith one Rohtas submitted a representation to the Gram Panchayat for regularization of their unauthorized construction over the Gram Panchayat land by selling it to them at collector rate under Rule 12(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Rules, 1964 (for short ‘the 1964 Rules’). The Gram Panchayat passed a unanimous resolution on 05.09.2016 deciding to sell the Gram Panchayat land which was in the occupation of villagers since last 30-35 years, on which they had constructed their houses and the lands did not obstruct the passage and fell between the lal dora and phirni at the collector rate. Since their case was pending before the Government, they approached this Court in CWP No. 14933 of 2017. The said writ petition was disposed of at the initial stage by an order dated 13.07.2017 with a direction to Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat to decide the claim of all the petitioners therein and keeping in view the conditions as prescribed in Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules and the judgment dated 06.08.2015 passed by this Court in CWP No. 10697 of 2014, titled Ram Chander alias Chander vs. State of Haryana and Others.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat after hearing all the three petitioners and perusing the resolution dated 05.09.2016 passed by the Gram Panchayat, Sirsadh, called a report from Block Development and Panchayat Officer (BDPO), Mundalana. The BDPO visited the spot and inspected the site and found that petitioner No. 1 (Joginder) was found to be in illegal occupation of area measuring 757.37 sqare yards, petitioner No. 2 (Karamveer) was found to be in illegal occupation of area measuring 239.48 sq. yards and another person Rohtas (who is not a petitioner in the present writ petition) was found to be in illegal possession of area measuring 1387.18 square yards. The Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat rejected the claim of the petitioners vide impugned order dated 06.10.2020 (P-8) on the ground that as per inspection report of the BDPO, the area occupied by the petitioners is not covered by Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules which provides for sale of area upto maximum of 200 square yards. He further held that the petitioners, being rank trespassers are not entitled for being considered under Rule 12 (4) in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 28.01.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 1132 of 2011, titled Jagpal Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others.

4. The petitioners filed CWP No. 17869 of 2020 challenging the order dated 06.10.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, which is also the subject matter of the present petition. This Court after examining the statutory provision as espoused by Rule 12 (4) and the judgment in Ram Chander and Jagpal Singh's case (supra), relied upon by the petitioners, vide a detailed judgment dated 10.11.2020 (P-9) upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 06.10.2020 and dismissed the writ petition being devoid of any merit. The relevant extract of the judgment (P-9) is reproduced as below:-

“Rule 12(4) of the Rules, 1964 is relevant f