TARLOK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the orders dtd. 15/12/2016 and 5/5/2017 (Annexures P-17 and P-19 respectively), whereby the petitioner (Tarlok Singh) has been ordered to be evicted from part of the public street encroached upon by him in the proceedings initiated by the Gram Panchayat under Sec. 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (in short "The Act, 1961").

(2.) In brief, the conceded facts which emerge out from the record are that there exists a public passage/common passage in Khasra No. 45, as per the revenue record of Village Balrah (Hadbast 500), Block Tanda, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. The petitioner and pro forma respondents are the inhabitants of village Balrah. There was Tug of War among the inhabitants of the locality with regard to encroachment over the common passage comprising in Khasra No. 45. As a result, to find out as to whether there was any encroachment over common passage, Halka Kanungo/local Commissioner conducted the demarcation of this Khasra No. 45 on 27/4/2016 and submitted a report dtd. 2/5/2016 (Annexure P-13). That at the time of conducting the demarcation, the petitioner also remained present on the spot. The local Commissioner on the basis of the demarcation conducted by him on 27/4/2016 came to the conclusion that petitioner has unauthorizedly constructed a portion of his house on the land of common passage comprising in Khasra No. 45 to the extent of 220 Sq.ft. Thereafter, the District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Hoshiarpur vide order dtd. 15/12/2016 (P-17) directed the removal of the unauthorized encroachment, comprising two and half (2-1/2) feet unauthorized extended gallery measuring a total 220 Square Feet. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dtd. 15/12/2016 (P-17) under Sec. 13A of "The Act, 1961" was also dismissed by the Director Rural Development and Panchayats Punjab, Mohali, exercising the powers of Commissioner, vide impugned order dtd. 5/5/2017 (P-19). It transpires that since there was no stay during the appeal, warrants of possession were also issued by the District Development & Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Hoshiarpur vide order dtd. 20/2/2017 (P-18) as per report dtd. 2/5/2016 (P-13).

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has contended that all the impugned orders are merit-less and have been passed in clandestine manner. The petitioner has not made any encroachment over the land of public passage. It is further contended that the eviction order has been passed by the Collector at the back of the petitioner by wrongly declaring him ex parte without proper service. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.