SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER, GURUGRAM DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dtd. 28/1/2020 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kosli - respondent No.3 allowing the application of Gram Panchayat, Khurshid Nagar - respondent No.4, filed for eviction of the petitioner from the illegally occupied land of the gram panchayat, which is the village pond and common passage leading to the same being used by the villagers creating hindrance in the public use of the same, whereupon he had forcibly erected a tin shed; challenge has also been posed to the order dtd. 14/10/2020 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Collector, District Rewari -respondent No.2, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kosli, stands dismissed as also the order dtd. 29/7/2021 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram - respondent No.l dismissing the revision petition preferred by him.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Gram Panchayat, Khurshid Nagar, is not the owner of the land, from where the petitioner is being sought to be evicted. He asserts that the land in question is situated within the abadi deh and therefore, there is no revenue record, however, the ancestors of the petitioner had been in possession of the said land. His contention is that in the absence of any revenue record or the evidence to the effect that the petitioner has encroached upon the gram panchayat land as alleged, the order of eviction could not have been passed. He asserts that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kosli, has passed the order dtd. 28/1/2020 (Annexure P-7) relying upon the report of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Nahar, dtd. 8/11/2019, copy whereof is appended as Annexure P-6, which clearly spells out that in the absence of the revenue record, it could not be ascertained as to what area of the village pond and to what extent, there has been encroachment by the petitioner. Similar is the position with regard to the passage. He, on this basis, submits that the order of eviction of the petitioner could not have been passed when it was not possible to ascertain as to whether there is encroachment upon the common passage or the village pond and the extent to which such encroachment, if any, is there, could be ascertained. His contention is that the gram panchayat had not been able to show that it was the owner of the land in question or it vested in the gram panchayat nor has anything been brought on record which would indicate that the said land, which is the subject matter of the present case, was being used for public purpose. On this basis, it is asserted that the impugned orders passed by the authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961, cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside.

(3.) We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the pleadings and the records of the case.