SUMER SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed on peculiar facts challenging order of the Deputy Director, Panchayats, Haryana dated January 5, 1981 (Annexure P.2) whereby he accepted appeal filed against the order of the Gram Panchayat, Chandanwas (Annexure P.1).

(2.) Summer Singh petitioner is owning house in village Gurawara, tehsil Rewari, district Mohindergarh. He constructed gate to his house which was demolished by co-villagers Balwant Singh alias Balli and Lal Singh, respondents No. 3 and 4 and others. Sumer Singh approached the Gram Panchayat alleging that gate of his house was wrongly demolished by Balwant and others and he should be permitted to raise the construction of the gate. The case was transferred from the Panchayat of village Gurawara to the panchayat of village Chandanwas. The panchayat of village Chandan was held an inquiry, recorded statements of the witness produced by the parties and thereafter passed order, Annexure P-1, holding the Balwant and others caused harm by intentionally dismantling to gate of Sumer Singh petitioner and thus he was granted permission to construct the aforesaid gate with the further warning that if Balwant and others would raise any obstruction, they would be liable to pay compensation. As already noticed above, this order was challenged in appeal by Balwant and others. The Deputy Director in his order, Annexure P.2 held after inspection of the spot that only house of Sumer Singh was situated in the street encroaching it to the extent of about four feet. Otherwise, the street was quite sufficiently wide and this extension of the house in the thoroughfare did not cause any obstruction at all. An another stage, he observed that it was difficult to arrive at the definite conclusion regarding the unauthorised possession within the abadi deh. He held that Sumer Singh had already encroached upon the thorough fare and to allow him to construct the gate would meet no objective except beautification of his house. By granting sanction, there will be encroachment of unauthorised occupation in the village. The order of the Gram Panchayat was thus set aside. This order is under challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) The written statement has been filed by Balwant Singh and Lal Singh, respondents Nos. 3 and 4, inter alia, maintaining that Sumer Singh raised construction of the gate encroaching four feet of the street through the agency of the Panchayat and he wanted to perpetrate the same. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced two photographs, Mark 'A' and 'B' to show the situation of the house of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, nobody has appeared today.