IMPORTANT POINT
Unauthorized constructions on village land can only be regularized if the occupant is an inhabitant and the land is used for residential purposes, as per the relevant regulations.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.(Oral): In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has asked for the quashing of Annexure P/13 wherebys the Director General, Development and Department, Haryana, proceeded to in paragraph 7 of the said Annexure, paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, thus hold that the petitioner is not an inhabitant of the village.

“7. From the perusal of afore stated facts and provisions under Rule 12(4) of the Rules, 1964, it is revealed that maximum area of land in shamilat de upto 200 sq. yards, along with open space upto 25% of the constructed area can be allowed to be sold to the inhabitants of the village who have constructed their houses on or before 31.03.2000. In the present case, the petitioner is not an inhabitant of the village and he has encroached upon the land measuring 1 Kanal 8 Marla which is much more than the limit prescribed under rule 12(4) of the Rules, 1964. Moreover, the unauthorized occupation can only be regularized if the land is being used for residential purposes whereas the land in question is being used for commercial purposes. Thus the case of the petitioner is not covered under rule 12(4) of the Rules, 1964 in any manner. Therefore, the resolutions dated 15.11.2008 and 02.09.2011 passed by Gram Panchayat Mandi Khera cannot be recommended for approval of the State Government. Hence the request made by the petitioner for regularization his unauthorized possession over the land measuring 1 Kanal 8 Marla is hereby rejected.”

2. Moreover, in the said paragraph, it was also concluded that the area of the panchayat land encroached upon by the petitioner, is more than the saleable limit(s), as prescribed in Rule 12 (4) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964, (as applicable to Haryana), (hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1964’), Rule 12 (4) provisions whereof becomes extracted hereinafter.

“Rule 12 (4) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964, (as applicable to Haryana).

12(4) The Gram Panchayat may with the prior approval of (the State Government), sell its non-cultivable land in shamilat 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 passers-by, along with open space upto 25% of the constructed area or an appurtenant area upto a maximum of 200 square yards at not less than collector rate {floor rate or market rate, whichever is higher}.”

3. Resultantly, the construction raised by the present petitioner, over the land owned by the Gram Panchayat concerned, became declined to become ordered to become considered to be sold in favour of the present petitioner, through a Panchayat resolution becoming passed and the same being accorded lawful approval by the competent approving authority.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, does not controvert, the factum that the maximum cap in respect of construction raised on shamlat deh lands, for thus becoming considered to be directed to be sold to the person, who has unauthorizedly raised the said construction, over shamlat deh, is the one as provided under the Rules of 1964.

5. In consequence, after appreciating the adduced evidence in respect of assigning of the benefit of the said Rule, to the present petitioner, the author of the impugned Annexure P/13, concluded therein, that the construction raised by the present petitioner, upon, the subject lands, was more than the prescribed limit (supra) as embodied in Rule 12 (4) of the Rules of 1964.

6. Furthermore, it was also stated therein that the regularization of the unauthorized construction over the shamlat deh, can be ordered to be done, but only if the construction, is evidently used only for residential purposes, but is not used for commercial purposes, whereas, with the petitioner as stated today at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner, rather running a commercial enterprise comprised of eight shops