SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2958

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, SUDEEPTI SHARMA, JJ.
Lakhvir Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 28527 of 2023
Decided On : 19-12-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Maninder Singh, DAG, Punjab.

The court mandates lawful demarcation of encroached lands under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, emphasizing the responsibilities of revenue officials to act against encroachments.

Headnote:(A) Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - Section 7 - Encroachment on common lands - Petitioner alleges encroachments on designated lands; seeks lawful demarcation and removal of encroachers - Tahsildar's inaction on demarcation directions criticized - Collector directed to issue show cause notice against Tahsildar for dereliction of duties. (Paras 1-4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleges encroachments on lands designated as gair mumkin hadda rori, gair mumkin chappar, and gair mumkin passage and seeks action against encroachers through lawful demarcation by an empowered revenue officer.

Findings of Court:
The Tahsildar's failure to act on the BDPO's request for demarcation is decried, and directions are issued for prompt action.

Issues: The main issues include the failure of the Tahsildar to take lawful action regarding the encroachments and the necessity for demarcation to enforce eviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the need for lawful demarcation to address encroachments and the responsibilities of the Tahsildar and other officials in ensuring compliance with the law.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

The petitioner alleges that some encroachments are made, upon the lands designated, as gair mumkin hadda rori, gair mumkin chappar and gair mumkin passage. Therefore, for ensuring that lawful action against the encroachers, upon the above lands, is drawn by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned, and/or by the BDPO concerned, thus a validly made demarcation of the relevant sites is required to be conducted by an empowered revenue officer concerned.

2. In the above endeavour, the BDPO concerned, has addressed a letter (Annexure P-4) to the Tahsildar Samana for conducting demarcation of the relevant lands, through his making directions, upon an empowered revenue officer concerned. However, despite the said letter (Annexure P-4) becoming addressed to the Tahsildar, Samana, yet no further directions have been passed by Tahsildar, Samana, upon any empowered revenue officer concerned, so that thereby demarcation of the above site is conducted. Consequently, for the failure of action takings by the Tahsildar, Samana, thus no lawful motion yet has been drawn under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961'), for ensuring that the encroachers, who have made encroachments, upon the above sites, are ensured to be removed therefrom, thus through a decree of eviction becoming rendered against them.

3. Consequently, the dereliction of duties on the part of Tahsildar, Samana are deprecated, and, a show cause notice is directed to be issued upon him, by the Collector of the revenue District concerned, for eliciting from him the reason for his failure to draw any lawful action, upon, Annexure P-4.

4. Be that as it may, Tahsildar, Samana is directed to forthwith appoint an empowered revenue officer for conducting a lawful demarcation of the relevant sites. Subsequently, if in the said validly conducted demarcation of the petition land(s), some encroachments are revealed to be made thereons, thereupon either the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned, or the BDPO concerned, shall forthwith move a petition under Section 7 of the Act of 1961, thus before the Assistant Collector concerned, who shall draw a lawful speaking order thereons, but after hearing all the affected persons concerned, thus within a period of six months of the said petition becoming preferred before him.

5. With the afore observations, the petition stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top