Sr. No.118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 01.07.2025 Karan alias Dhanpat …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. P.P.Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Randhir Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4-Gram Panchayat.

***

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

Through the instant petition, challenge is made to the notices dated 05.06.2025 and 12.06.2025 issued by the respondent Gram Panchayat under Section 24(1) and 24(2) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the 1994 Act’), seeking to evict the petitioner from his shop/land on the ground that such construction has been unauthorizedly made by the petitioner on land belonging to the Panchayat.

2. The primary ground on which the petitioner challenges the impugned orders is that to evict the petitioner from the land in question the respondent Panchayat could and should not have resorted to summary proceedings under Section 24(1) and 24(2) of the 1994 Act particularly in the absence of any evidence which would establish the petitioner’s unauthorized possession over panchayat land and also without considering the reply filed by the petitioner to the impugned notices. In support of his contentions, reliance is placed by learned counsel on a judgment of this Court in Karambir and others Vs. State of Haryana and others 2023 (4) RCR (civil) 435; the relevant paragraphs of which judgment are reproduced herein below:-

“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.

7. For the reasons (Supra), the impugned notice(s) (supra), are quashed and set aside. However, the Gram Panchayat concerned, may hence through a petition cast upon under Section 7 or 11 of the Act, before the Collector concerned, hence seek the eviction of the encroachers concerned, from the lands concerned, rather than through the drawings of notices(supra). On such a petition being filed before the Collector concerned, the latter shall but in accordance with law, and, after an opportunity of hearing being given to all the concerned, hence make a decision thereons rather positively within six months of its preferment. Till the said petition becomes instituted, there upto the parties are directed to maintain status-quo, as of today, in respect of the disputed land. In case, the above petition becomes instituted before the Collector concerned, thereupon the respondents thereins, may institute an application therein claiming an apposite interim relief, and, thereons a lawful order shall be promptly passed by the Collector concerned, but after granting an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned. However, it is clarified that the quashing of the notice(s) (supra) shall not be construed as an influencing consideration, by the Assistant Collector First Grade concerned.”

3. Faced with the above, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the respondent-Gram Panchayat submit that they have clear instructions that the impugned notices dated 05.06.2025 and 12.06.2025 have been withdrawn. However, the respondent-Gram Panchayat be granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short ‘the 1961 Act’), seeking therein the petitioner’s eviction from the land which, according to the respondent-Gram Panchayat, the petit