SURESH PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO occasion at all arises to interfere with the impugned order whereby, eviction of the petitioners has been ordered in the proceedings initiated under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), culminating into the order passed by learned Commission dated 19.6.2003, Annexure P-4. It is significant to mention that before the revisional Court, there was not even an argument raised that eviction order passed against the petitioners was either illegal or improper. All that has been urged before learned Commissioner is that the petitioners in view of the Government policy should be allowed to purchase the constructed portion. This contention has since been gone into thoroughly by learned Commissioner and the same, in our view, has rightly been rejected because the land in dispute is Charand. In other words, same is meant for common purpose of the villagers. Such a land, even as per the Government policy, cannot be permitted to be purchased. Further the rights of the petitioners to purchase the land cannot be gone into in the eviction proceedings under Section 7 of the Act.

(2.) AT this stage, learned counsel representing the petitioners, argues that Gram Panchayat had earlier passed a resolution favouring the purchase of the constructed portion by the petitioners and whereas, such a resolution has been passed, the concerned authorities would have no option but for to allot the land. For his aforesaid contention, learned counsel relies upon three judgments of this Court in Smt. Malkhani v. The Commissioner Rohtak Division, Rohtak, 2001(4) RCR(Civil) 25 (P&H) : (2001-02) PLR 450, Hari Singh v. Piare Lal, 1999(3) RCR(Civil) 240 (P&H) : (1999-3) PLR 166 and Kamrudin v. State of Haryana, 2002(3) RCR(Civil) 599 (P&H) : 2002(1) PLJ 9.