Validity of notices under Section 24(1) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 requires a valid demarcation of the land and proper application of mind.

Judgment

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The Panchayat land was allegedly encroached, upon, by the present petitioner, therefore notices become passed upon the petitioner, rather under Section 24 (1) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, thus, by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned, whereby he was asked to remove the structures raised on the common passage, but owned and possessed by the Gram Panchayat concerned.

2. The validities of issuance of notice (supra) has been adjudicated, upon, by this Court, in a judgment made by this Court, in case titled as “Karambir and others v/s State of Haryana and others”, to which CWP No.14698 of 2023 has been assigned. The relevant principles which become summarized therein and also the conclusions which became drawn by this Court, are carried in paragraph Nos.5 and 6 thereof, paras whereofs, become extracted hereinafter:-

“5. Since this Court while deciding CWP-19867-2020 (Annexure P-11), had summarized the hereinafter principles, which but cover the common thereto(s) questions of law, as are also involved in the present writ petition.

(i) The exercising of jurisdiction by the Gram Panchayat concerned, through recoursing the relevant mandate(s) of Section 24 of the 1994 Act, may be a validly adopted recourse, but only when prior to the makings of the apposite notice, a valid demarcation of the sites concerned, is conducted, and, such notice is validly served upon the respondents concerned.

(ii) The consequent thereto drawing(s) of actions against the encroachers concerned, who raise constructions, upon the vacant places within the abadi deh, may also be a validly drawing action(s), but only when even prior thereto a valid demarcation of the sites concerned, is conducted by competent Revenue Officer:

(iii) The proceedings drawn under Section 24 of the 1994 Act, are summary in nature, thus recourse thereto may be avoided by the Gram Panchayat concerned, especially when evidence in respect of the lands concerned, falling within or outside the ambit of the apposite inclusionary clause, is required to be adduced, and, when such evidence may surface, not in summary proceedings, but may surface in fully contested proceedings, launched under Section 7 and 11 of the Haryana Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961.

6. Thus, in view of the above summarized principles, it can be safely concluded, that when the proceedings drawn under Section 24 of ‘the 1994 Act’, are but summary in nature, and, when but evidence, in respect of encroachments being made upon the petition lands, may not surface in the said summary proceedings, but may surface only in fully contested proceedings, launched under Section 7 or 11 of the 1961 Act. Therefore, the issuance of notice(s) (supra) are construable to be made with the completest lack of application of mind and rather are rendered in a cryptic, slipshod and in an ill informed manner.”

3. The above extracted conclusions, when completely discount the validity of initiation of proceedings for eviction, by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned, through the latter invoking the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, (supra), thereupon the Sarpanch of the Panchayat concerned, has derogated from the mandates (supra), whereupon, the notice (supra) as has been issued upon the present petitioner, but naturally becomes legally unjustifiable.

4. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned, the Collector of the District Collectorate concerned, as revealed by Annexure P/4, proceeded to appoint the BDPO concerned, to ensure the execution of the said notice, on the encroachers concerned, but since obstructions were made to the execution of the said notice, thereby, as revealed by Annexure P/5, thus, police help was asked for, thus, by the Executing Officer concerned for ensuring the removal of the encroachments made upon the common passage.

5. It is stated before this Court by the learned State counsel, that the notice (supra) has been execut