IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

204 Date of Decision: 16.02.2026 KRISHAN PAL AND ORS.

...Appellants Versus COMMISSIONER, ROHTAK DIVISION, ROHTAK AND ORS.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present:- Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants.

Ms. Anu Pal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Govind Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

Mr. Parmod Chauhan, Advocate, respondent No.4.

*****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL)

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-7123-2011, titled as ‘Krishan Pal and others vs. The Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and others’, whereby writ petition was allowed and the orders of eviction dated 20.01.2011 and dated 30.08.2007 passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively, under the provisions of Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1972 Act’) have been set aside on technical grounds.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that though the order was passed in favour of the appellants with regard to the eviction proceedings, which were initiated under the 1972 Act, but liberty was granted to the Gram Panchayat of respective villages to proceed under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’), for eviction of the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that further direction has been given to pay Rs.20,000/- per acre form the date of the filing of the eviction petitions under the 1972 Act till the disposal of the eviction petition that may be filed under 1961 Act, which is incorrect as nothing has come on record to show that the appellants are encroachers.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their able assistance.

4. It may be noticed that a finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge, which is as under:-

“Admittedly, the Gram Panchayat is owner of the land in question. The same is clear from the jamabandies for the year 1956-57 and onwards, the petitioners in both the writ petitions are in prima facie unauthorized possession and the impugned orders have been set aside only on technical grounds.”

5. It was, under these circumstances, where the question of title was not proved before the learned Single Judge by the appellants and only on the technical grounds, the order of eviction passed against the appellants was set aside, but apprehending that the Gram Panchayat is acting in collusion with the appellants, direction was given to the appellants to pay the amount to the Gram Panchayat for using the land belonging to the said Gram Panchayat. It may be noticed that 12 acres of land of the Gram Panchayat is in possession of the appellants and directing them to pay Rs.20,000/- per acre keeping in view the revenue being generated from the said land cannot be treated as arbitrary or illegal.

6. Even during the hearing of the appeal, the appellants were repeatedly called upon to prove their ownership of the land in question, however, they failed to do so. Hence, once a large chunk of the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat is being used by the appellants to their financial benefits, raising a grievance that they have been asked to deposit certain amount during the pendency of eviction proceedings, which the Gram Panchayat was directed to initiate under the 1961 Act, cannot be treated as arbitrary or illegal.

7. Further, the Director (Panchayat), Haryana, is directed to file an affidavit within a period of four weeks as to whether the direction so given by the learned Single Judge about 11 years ago has been complied with or not and if not, why and what action has been initiated by the Gram Panchayat or the Department of Panchayat, Haryana, to get the land released from the possession of the appellants, who are continuing with the same without any authority.

8. The prese