RAJKARAN Vs. COLLECTOR,DISTRICT MAHENDERGARH AT NARNAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner by way of this writ petition is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing impugned order dtd. 30/9/2015 (P-6) passed by Collector, Distt.Mahendergarh-respondent no.1 as also order dtd. 21/1/2013 (P-4) passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade,Mahendergarh, whereby he has been held to be in unauthorised possession of 4 marlas of shamlat deh comprised in khasra no.1344 (total 6K18M) recorded as Gair Mumkin Passage in the revenue estate of Village Dhanonda, Tehsil Kanina, District Mahendergarh.

(2.) Briefly noticed, it is averred in the petition that Anil Kumar- respondent no.4 filed an application under Sec. 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act,1961 before respondent no.2 on 9/6/2008. Notice was issued to petitioner as well as other arrayed respondents. During the proceedings, Local Commissioner was appointed to visit the spot and present demarcation report with regard to unauthorised possession over the panchyat land,if any. Accordingly Local Commissioner alongwith other revenue officials visited the spot on 19/4/2010 and prepared the demarcation report (Annexure P-1). It is alleged that at the time of demarcation petitioner was not present at the spot. However, he alongwith respondent no.4 raised objections to the said demarcation report dtd. 19/4/2010(P-1). Upon this, fresh demarcation was conducted on 14/7/2011. It is alleged that while submitting demarcation report dtd. 14/7/2011(Annexure P-2), reliance was placed upon earlier demarcation report dtd. 19/4/2010 conducted by the Local Commissioner. Thereafter, respondent no.2 vide order dtd. 21/1/2013 (P-4) held that petitioner was in unauthorised possession of 4 marlas of shamlat land and accordingly directed to vacate the same. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before Collector, Distt.Mahendergarh-respondent no.1. It is further averred that besides filed the said appeal petitioner also moved an application before Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Kanina to get a fresh demarcation done in his presence. Naib Tehsildar ordered a fresh demarcation and the same was conducted on 30/6/2013 and fresh report (P-5) was prepared in which it was found that petitioner was only in unauthorised possession of one tree, while respondent no.4 was found in unauthorised possession to the extent of 2 marlas of land while one Parmu was also found to be in unauthorised possession of four marlas of shamlat deh. Though respondent no.4 was present at the spot, but he refused to sign the demarcation report dtd. 30/6/2013 (P-5). It is averred that the report dtd. 30/6/2013 was duly submitted before respondent no.1, but he did not consider the same by observing that it was not on record and as such dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order dtd. 30/9/2015(P-6) by upholding the order dtd. 21/1/2013(P-4) passed by respondent no.2. It is thus claimed that as per demarcation report dtd. 30/6/2013 petitioner was not found in unauthorised possession of any shamlat land, but instead respondent no.4 alongwith other villagers were found to be in unauthorised possession of shamlat land. It is thus asserted that the demarcation reports dtd. 19/4/2010 and 14/7/2011 have wrongly been relied upon by respondent no.2 whereby petitioner was held to be in authorised possession of shamlat deh. It is further alleged that respondent no.1 illegally ignored report dtd. 30/6/2013 and relied upon earlier report dtd. 19/4/2010. Hence the present petition challenging impugned orders P-6 and P-4 passed by respondent no.1 and 2 respectively.

(3.) At the time of hearing on 2/2/2017 petitioner had shown his willingness to get a fresh demarcation done at his cost by a Local Commissioner to be appointed by this Court so as to find out encroachment,if any by petitioner or private respondent. Accordingly notice of motion was issued and vide order dtd. 2/3/2017, Mr.Rishabh Gupta,Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner to carry out demarcation and submit his report to this Court.