JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

As revealed by Annexure P-33, which becomes appended to CM- 1579-2023 (in CWP-2485-2021), a revenue rasta exists upon khasra No. 264/2. The dimensions of said revenue rasta is 5 kanals and 7 marlas. It is also detailed in Annexure P-33, that the said rasta is owned by Gram Panchayat concerned. Therefore, all the persons, who have any lawful rights to exercise thereons their easmentary rights, but naturally cannot be deprived from their making such exercising(s) thereons nor prima facie the private builders concerned, can make any apposite obstructions.

2. It is also revealed from a perusal of the sanction plan, as is drawn in favour of the builder concerned, that the competent authority, has in respect of the lands concerned, rather granted sanction to the private builder to raise construction but on lands lawfully owned, and, possessed by such builder.

3. The dispute which has emerged in both the writ petitions, is with respect to purported encroachments being made, and/or not being made, upon the above revenue rasta. The Petitioners in CWP No. 2485 of 2021, make a submission through their counsel, that the revenue rasta concerned, has been encroached, upon by the builder concerned, and, that the said revenue rasta, under the direction of this Court, be directed to be opened rather for enabling all the persons concerned, to exercise thereons their lawful easmentary rights.

4. The builder concerned, has also instituted CWP No. 25951 of 2021, before this Court, claiming therein the makings of relevant directions, upon the Respondents concerned, especially for facilitating the furthering(s) of construction activities, as undergoing at the site concerned, and, also for ensuring that the above revenue rasta, as carried in khasra No. 264/2, is not subjected to such constructions, as, appertaining to the above revenue rasta being ordered to be temporarily barricaded.

5. The learned State counsel submits before this Court, that at the instant stage, all the lands concerned, fall within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, as the relevant provisions, as carried in Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 have been made applicable to all the lands concerned.

6. Though, earlier thereto, it was also submitted by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, that there was a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat concerned, with respect to sale or exchange of the revenue rasta, being made inter se the private builder concerned, and, the Gram Panchayat concerned, but the said proposal(s) either for the sale or for the exchange of the revenue rasta, to the private builder concerned, rather may not, as of now, rather be of any relevance, as, (supra) Gram Panchayat concerned, has become functus officio, also when the proposal was not accepted by the competent authority concerned.

7. Nonetheless, the learned State counsel submits, that now no encroachment on the revenue rasta is made by the builder concerned.

8. Though, the above made submission, is made before this Court, by the learned State counsel, but when the truth thereto is contested, therefore, but necessarily requires qua determinations being made of the trite factum, whether any encroachments or no encroachments, are made on the revenue rasta concerned, and, whether such encroachments, as made on the revenue rasta concerned, are permissible deviation(s) from the building plans, as, sanctioned in favour of the private builder concerned, and/or whether the encroachment, if any, made upon the revenue rasta concerned, purport