JAI NARAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAGHBIR respondent initiated proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as applicable in the State of Haryana (hereinafter called the Act) for the ejectment of the petitioners from the land in dispute on the ground that the latter had encroached upon a public thoroughfare which vested in the Gram Panchayat as a result of which the public path had been narrowed down. The petition was contested by the petitioners only on the ground that their residential house in which they were residing had been constructed almost 80 years back by their forefathers and that the house did not even touch the public path. They also pleaded that there had been no demarcation of the land in dispute and, therefore, it could not be said that they had encroached upon any part of the public path. A Local Commissioner was appointed by the Assistant Collector who demarcated the land and submitted his report holding that the petitioners had constructed a pucca haveli after making encroachment on the public street and that only 14' 6" wide path had been left at the spot. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, the Assistant Collector accepted the demarcation report of the Local Commissioner and held that the petitioners were in unauthorised occupation of the public street. He accordingly allowed the application and ordered their ejectment. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector, Narnaul who by his order dated 15.4.1992 dismissed the same. Still not satisfied the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner who by his order dated October 21, 1982 dismissed the same in limine. It is against these orders that the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties and am of the view that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act, as it then stood, reads as under :-

(3.) AS regards the unauthorised occupation of the petitioners, the authorities below have concurrently found that they have encroached upon the public street. This is a finding of fact and based as it is on the material on the record, there is no reason for me to interfere with the same in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This finding does not suffer from any error of law or fact which could be said to be apparent from the record so as to warrant interference by this Court. In fact, this finding was not seriously challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.