Supreme Court of India
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus SATPAL & ORS. on 3 March 2023
12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 2 S.C.R. 12
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
A
v.
SATPAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2984-2985 of 2022)
BMARCH 03, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act – Punjab VillageCommon Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964 – r. 12 – Unauthorisedpossession – Respondents were alleged to be in the possession of aCland, which was claimed to be belonging to Gram Panchayat and wasmeant for construction of school thus giving rise to the dispute betweenthe appellant and the respondents – On the application of the sarpanch,the demarcation proceedings were carried out with respect to the landin which the unauthorized possession of the respondent was shown –DThe eviction proceeding were initiated and the respondent was ultimatelyevicted and the appeal by the respondents before the Collector andthereafter before the Commissioner was rejected – Writ petition – HighCourt directed for fresh demarcation – Pursuant thereto, LocalCommissioner filed its report, the High Court ultimately directed theparties to invoke powers under Rule 12 and determine the marketEvalue of the land to the extent to which it is under occupation of therespondent, namely, the land where houses are constructed andwherever the vacant area can be segregated from the residentialhouse, it can be separated and utilized for earmarked purpose,i.e., school premises – Aggrieved by the decision, the appellantFpreferred appeal before the Supreme Court – Held : Under thecircumstances, the High Court has committed a very serious errorin directing to legalise the unauthorized occupation and possessionmade by the original writ petitioners on payment of market price –Even the other directions issued by the High Court are not capableof being implemented,namely, to segregate the vacant land from theGresidential house and which can be separated and utilised forearmarked purpose, i.e., school premises – Further there is no otherpanchayati land and/or other land, which is available, which canbe used as school premises/playground and the adjacent landbelongs to some private persons and they are not ready to part withHtheir land to be used as school premises/playground.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It cannot be disputed that the original writpetitioners are in illegal and unauthorized occupation of the GramPanchayat land to the extent of 5 kanal and 4 marla out of 11kanals and 15 marla reserved for the purpose of the school. Asobserved hereinabove, there is no playground at all. The schoolis surrounded by the unauthorized construction made by theoriginal writ petitioners. Therefore, the unauthorized occupationand possession of the land, which is reserved for the school andthe playground, cannot be directed to be legalized. There cannotbe any school without playground. Even the students, who studyin such a school are entitled to a good environment. [Para 4][18-E-F]
2. Under the circumstances, the High Court has committeda very serious error in directing to legalise the unauthorizedoccupation and possession made by the original writ petitionerson payment of market price. Even the other directions issued bythe High Court are not capable of being implemented, namely, tosegregate the vacant land from the residential house and whichcan be separated and utilised for earmarked purpose, i.e., schoolpremises. The unauthorized construction is in such a manner andeven some areas are not used for residential purpose and someof the area is covered by vegetation and therefore, it is notpossible to segregate and separate the same, which can be usedfor school premises. There is no other panchayati land and/orother land, which is available, which can be used as schoolpremises/playground. The adjacent land belongs to some privatepersons and they are not ready to part with their land to be usedas school premises/playground. [Para 4.1][18-G-H; 19-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2984-2985 of 2022.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2984-2985 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2016 in RACW No.284 of 2016 and dated 12.05.2016 in CWP No. 3167 of 2015 of the HighCourt of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.
Rakesh K. Mudgal, AAG, Kailash C. Mudgal, Vishwa Pal Singh,Advs. for the Appellants.
C
DE
F
G
H
A
Surender Deswal, Sahil Garg Narang, V. K. Shukla, JayantaBhattacharyya, Ankit Verma, Ms. Archana Kumari, Ms. Shivangi Singh,Rahul Gupta, Shashank Sharma, Miss. Saket Gautam, PrithviJoy Das,Satish Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
BThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
2
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarhdated 12.05.2016 in C.W.P. No. 3167 of 2015 and the order datedC21.10.2016 passed in Review application No. 284 of 2016 in CWP No.3167 of 2015, the State of Haryana and Ors. have preferred the presentappeals.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:- D
D2.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the contestingrespondents are in unauthorized possession of the land comprising KhasraNos. 61/2 and 62, which belong to the Gram Panchayat. On theApplication of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, a Demarcation was carriedout with regard to Khasra Nos. 61/2 and 62 in which the unauthorizedpossession of the respondents - original writ petitioners has been shown.E
2.2 Eviction proceedings were initiated on 25.03.2009 by filingthe ejectment application under Section 7(2) of the Punjab VillageCommon Land (Regulation) Act. Assistant Collector passed the ejectmentorder dated 30.08.2011 against the contesting respondents.
2.3 Aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2011, the respondentspreferred an appeal before the Collector, Yamuna Nagar, which came tobe rejected by order dated 02.05.2012. Further appeal before theCommissioner, Ambala Division also came to be rejected by order dated04.07.2014.
F
2.4 The contesting respondents preferred Civil Writ Petition No.3167 of 2015 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for quashingthe orders dated 30.08.2011, 02.05.2012 and 04.07.2014.
G
2.5 When the matter came up for preliminary hearing before theHigh Court on 23.02.2015, it was stated that the land encroached uponHby the original writ petitioners is part of the school premises and they are ready and willing to give equivalent vacant land in exchange, to the GramPanchayat out of Khasra No.63, which also adjoins the schoolpremises and which can, thus, be utilized as a playground of the school.On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, notices came to be issued bythe High Court in the writ petition.
2.6 It appears that there was a dispute with regard to the totalarea under occupation of the original writ petitioners, a fresh demarcationwas directed to be conducted under the supervision of the LocalCommissioner appointed by the Court. Pursuant thereto, the LocalCommissioner submitted his report which established beyond doubt thatthe original writ petitioners are under unauthorized possession of theGram Panchayat land.
2.7 Faced with the report of the Local Commissioner, the originalwrit petitioners reiterated / re-stated before the High Court that theoriginal writ petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are ready and willing to give the landto Gram Panchayat equal to double the extent of the encroached landand other petitioners are willing to pay its market price as may be gotassessed by the Gram Panchayat.
2.8 The High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated12.05.2016 directed the newly constituted Gram Panchayat to considerthe claim of the individual encroachers on merits and take appropriatedecision. That thereafter, taking into consideration Rule 12 of the PunjabVillage Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964, directed that the GramPanchayat may, with the prior approval of the State Government, sell itsnon-cultivable land in Shamlat Deh to the inhabitants of the village, whohave constructed their houses on or before 31[st] March, 2000, providedthat they do not have any residential house and further provided that theconstructed area or an appurtenant area upto a maximum of 200 sq.yards. The said lands were to be sold at not less than the Collector rate,i.e., floor rate or market rate, whichever is higher. The aforesaid writpetition was disposed of with such direction.
2.9 By directing the parties to invoke powers under Rule 12 anddetermine the market value of the land to the extent to which it is underoccupation of the original writ petitioners, namely, the land where housesare constructed and wherever the vacant area can be segregated fromthe residential house, it can be separated and utilized for earmarkedpurpose, i.e., school premises, the High Court has disposed of the writ A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Apetition in terms of paragraphs 9 to 14, which read as under:- “(9) In our considered view, the authorities need to invoke powersunder Rule 12 ibid and determine the market value of the land tothe extent it is under occupation of the petitioners, namely, theland where houses are constructed. Wherever the vacant areaBcan be segregated from the residential house, it can be separatedand utilized for earmarked purpose i.e. school premises.
(10) As regard to the land where houses have been constructedby the petitioners, the Gram Panchayat and the DeputyCommissioner can exercise either of the two options, namely, (i)Cto take land double of the occupied/ encroached land from thepetitioners wherever they offer such land provided that the marketvalue of such land is not less than the market value of theencroached land; or (ii) the Gram Panchayat may pass resolutionwhereupon the Deputy Commissioner shall get the market valueof the land assessed and in that case, the petitioners instead ofDgiving double of the land shall be liable to pay such value.
(11) Wherever the area under occupation of the petitioner is morethan 200 sq.yards, the Deputy Commissioner may re-ascertain asto how many family (ies) are residing and whether such familiesare to be treated as ‘separate units’ or one unit.
E
(12) The land to be offered by the petitioners must be in closevicinity of the school so that it can be utilized for identified commonpurpose.
(13) The needful shall be done within four months from the dateFof receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till then status quoshall continue to be maintained.
(14) Disposed of accordingly.”
2.10 That the appellants preferred a Review Application beingRA No. 284 of 2016, which was also dismissed vide order datedG21.10.2016. The order passed by the High Court disposing of the mainwrit petition in terms of the above and the order dismissing the reviewapplication are the subject matter of the present appeals.
3. Present appeals were heard by this Court on 29.03.2022. ThisCourt passed the following order:- H
“The Assistant Collector, Mustafabad is hereby directed tosubmit a report along with Map/Sketch pointing out the exactmeasurement of the land bearing Khasra No.61/2 which wasearmarked for the School and the playground. In the report, itshall also be mentioned the total area of Khasra No.61/2 and themeasurement of the area occupied as School and the area to beused for playground and that whether in the land other than beingused for School there are any other encroachers or not other thanthe respondents herein and the total area occupied by therespondents herein and whether just adjacent to Khasra Nos.61/2 and 62, there is any other land available which can be purchasedby the respondents herein and which can be offered to thePanchayat which can be used for the playground.
The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a periodof 10 days from today.
Put up on 19.04.2022.”
3.1 Pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 29.03.2022,fresh demarcation of the Khasra Nos. 61/2 and 62 of Mauja Magharpurhas been undertaken and a report has been filed before this Court. On aperusal of the fresh demarcation, computerized sketch and theencroached site plan, it appears that the building of school is constructedin 3K-0M being part of Khasra No.61/2(7-16) and the remaining area of4K-16M and Khasra No. 62 (3K-19M) is also illegally possessed by thefollowing people:- A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A3.2 It is also found that there is no playground of the school inKhasra No. 62, nor is any panchayati land abutted nearby Khasra No.62 and the land which is near the above khasra numbers, the same isowned by another person and the said persons are not ready to sell theirland. It is found that the said land is at a distance of about 1 km awayfrom Khasra Nos. 61/2 and 62. Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it isBestablished that the original writ petitioners have encroached uponapproximately 5 kanal and 4 marla of the land belonging to the GramPanchayat, which have been earmarked for the school.
A
3.3 From the fresh sketch/map, it can be seen that the petitionershave encroached upon more than 200 sq.yds. and the High Court hasCdirected to determine the market value of the land, which is underoccupation of the original writ petitioners, namely, the land where housesare constructed. The High Court has also passed an order that whereverthe vacant area can be segregated from the residential house, it can beseparated and utilized for earmarked purpose, i.e., school premises.D3.4 From the map and sketch, we are of the opinion that thedirections issued by the High Court are not capable of being implemented.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesand considering the orders passed by all the authorities below and theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and even as perEthe fresh demarcation, it cannot be disputed that the original writpetitioners are in illegal and unauthorized occupation of the GramPanchayat land to the extent of 5 kanal and 4 marla out of 11 kanals and15 marla reserved for the purpose of the school. As observed hereinabove,there is no playground at all. The school is surrounded by the unauthorizedFconstruction made by the original writ petitioners. Therefore, theunauthorized occupation and possession of the land, which is reservedfor the school and the playground, cannot be directed to be legalized.There cannot be any school without playground. Even the students, whostudy in such a school are entitled to a good environment.
G4.1 Under the circumstances, the High Court has committed avery serious error in directing to legalise the unauthorized occupationand possession made by the original writ petitioners on payment of marketprice. Even the other directions issued by the High Court are not capableof being implemented, namely, to segregate the vacant land from theresidential house and which can be separated and utilised for earmarkedH
purpose, i.e., school premises. The unauthorized construction is in sucha manner and even some areas are not used for residential purpose andsome of the area is covered by vegetation and therefore, it is not possibleto segregate and separate the same, which can be used for schoolpremises. There is no other panchayati land and/or other land, which isavailable, which can be used as school premises / playground. Theadjacent land belongs to some private persons and they are not ready topart with their land to be used as school premises / playground.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and the directionsissued (reproduced hereinabove) directing to legalise the unauthorizedoccupation and possession made by the original writ petitioners on theland, which is earmarked for school premises / playground is unsustainableand the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordinglyquashed and set aside. However, the original writ petitioners are granted12 months’ time to vacate the land, which is occupied by themunauthorizedly and if within one year from today, they do not vacate thelands in question, the appropriate authority is directed to remove theirunauthorized and illegal occupation and possession.
With this, the present appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be noorder as to costs.
Ankit Gyan
Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri and Mahendra Yadav, LCRAs)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H