The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:- 2.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the contesting respondents are in unauthorized possession of the land comprising Khasra Nos. 4 The contesting respondents preferred Civil Writ Petition
No 3167 of 2015 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for quashing the orders dated 30.08.2011, 02.05.2012 and 04.07.2014.
7 Faced with the report of the Local Commissioner, the original writ petitioners reiterated / re-stated before the High Court that the original writ petitioner Nos. 9 By directing the parties to invoke powers under Rule 12 and determine the market value of the land to the extent to which it is under occupation of the original writ petitioners, namely, the land where houses are constructed and wherever the vacant area can be segregated from the residential house, it can be separated and utilized for earmarked purpose, i.e., school premises, the High Court has disposed of the writ petition in terms of paragraphs 9 to 14, which read as under:- “(9) In our considered view, the authorities need to invoke powers under Rule 12 ibid and determine the market value of the land to the extent it is under occupation of the petitioners, namely, the land where houses are constructed.
(11)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
Wherever the area under occupation of the petitioner is more than 200 sq.yards, the Deputy Commissioner may re-ascertain as to how many family (ies) are residing and whether such families are to be treated as’separate units’ or one unit.
The order passed by the High Court disposing of the main writ petition in terms of the above and the order dismissing the review application are the subject matter of the present appeals. In the report, it shall also be mentioned the total area of Khasra No.61/2 and the measurement of the area occupied as School and the area to be used for playground and that whether in the land other than being used for School there are any other encroachers or not other than the respondents herein and the total area occupied by the respondents herein and whether just adjacent to Khasra Nos.61/2 and 62, there is any other land available which can be purchased by the respondents herein and which can be offered to the Panchayat which can be used for the playground.
Dayal Chand Approx.17 Marla Surjit Singh S/o Joginder Singh, Balbir Kaur WD/o Baljit Singh & Davinder Kaur Wd/o
Manjit Singh Approx.26 Marla.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/taxation-of-engineering-design-drawings-goods-or-services/
Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the orders passed by all the authorities below and the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and even as per the fresh demarcation, it cannot be disputed that the original writ petitioners are in illegal and unauthorized occupation of the Gram Panchayat land to the extent of 5 kanal and 4 marla out of 11 kanals and 15 marla reserved for the purpose of the school.
The unauthorized construction is in such a manner and even some areas are not used for residential purpose and some of the area is covered by vegetation and therefore, it is not possible to segregate and separate the same, which can be used for school premises. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and the directions issued (reproduced hereinabove) directing to legalise the unauthorized occupation and possession made by the original writ petitioners on the land, which is earmarked for school premises / playground is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Case Title: THE STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SATPAL (2023 INSC 201)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002984-002985 / 2022
