RATTI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayer made is for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing order dated 21.9.1979 passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Rohtak, and also order dated 24.6.1980 of the Collector, whereby petitioner has been directed to remove the encroachment failing which encroachment is to be demolished and possession given to the Panchayat.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that respondent No. 3, namely, Mukhtiar Singh, filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as amended from time to time and as applicable to the State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as 1961 Act) for removing the encroachment of the public street by demolishing a part of the building of the petitioners alleged to have been constructed on the street. Assistant Collector on receipt of the application issued notice to the petitioners and in answer to the allegations made in the application, petitioners while denying encroachment submitted that they are in possession of the residential house from the time immemorial and have inherited it from their fore-fathers and are owners of the premises. They submitted that the premises do not vest in the Panchayat and are not a Shamlat Deh of Abadi. They also submitted that no part of the street had been encroached upon. Assistant Collector I grade gave an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and after appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on inspection of the site, found that petitioners had encroached upon the street to the extent of 4-1/2 ft. from the side of Puran Pandit and 3-1/2 ft. from the southern side. Assistant Collector therefore, directed the petitioners to remove the encroachment failing which the same was ordered to be removed. Being aggrieved of the order dated 21.9.1979 of the Assistant Collector, petitioners went in appeal before the Collector who again inspected the site and on finding that there is no infirmity in the order of the Assistant Collector, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present writ petition challenging the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit in this writ petition, Section 7 empowers the Assistant Collector of Ist Grade to put the Panchayat in possession of the land in the Shamlat Deh. Section clearly authorises to take proceedings against the person who is in wrongful or unauthorised possession of the land or other immovable property in the Shamlat Deh of the village which vests or is deemed to have vested in the Panchayat under the Act. In case a dispute arises as to the nature of the possession over the land in dispute, then in that situation the Assistant Collector would go into the matter and if he finds against the Panchayat he would dismiss the application and if he finds that the party is in wrongful or unauthorised possession he would proceed further in the matter. Proviso to Section 7 provides that if in any such proceedings the question of title is raised and proved prima-facie on the basis of documents that the question of title is really involved, the Assistant Collector of the Ist grade shall record a finding to that effect and first decide the question of title in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. Onus to substantiate the plea of title is on the person who raises the question of title in the proceedings under the 1961 Act. In the present case, petitioners in answer to the application under Section 7 of the Act stated that they have not encroached upon any part of the street and they are in possession of the residential house from the time immemorial and have inherited it from their fore-fathers. They did not produce any document or any other acceptable evidence to prima-facie establish their plea regarding title over the property. On the other hand, Assistant Collector not only appreciated the evidence brought on record, but also inspected the site and on inspection, he found ''that Ratti Ram has illegally obstructed the street in front of his house which seems to be 1-1/2 - 2 years old''. He also found that street becomes a bit narrow in front of the house of the petitioners. Collector too while deciding the appeal inspected the spot and found that the petitioners have encroached upon a part of the street. In view of the evidence and failure on the part of the petitioners to substantiate their plea relating to the title, the Assistant Collector and the Collector were justified in not going into the question of title. The orders having been passed in accordance with law, no interference is called for. Consequently, the writ petition being without any merit is to be dismissed. It is so ordered. No costs. Petition dismissed.