LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/joginder-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-20210205/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Joginder and Another vs State of Haryana and Others

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
5 February 2021
Case No.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1829 of 2021
Result
Dismissed
Bench
D.Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah
Citation
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 511 : 2021 INSC 62
Supreme Court Reports [2021] 1 S.C.R. 511 : 2021 INSC 62
Headnote

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 – Regularization of the illegal occupation – Petitioners, who are the residents of Village, encroached upon the panchayat land and constructed the houses – The Government of Haryana framed a policy regarding sale of panchayat land in unauthorised possession – The r.12(4) was incorporated in the 1964 Rules in terms of the notification dated 03.01.2008, which authorises Gram Panchayat to sell its non-cultivable land to the inhabitants of the village who have constructed their houses on or before 31.03.2000, subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in r.12(4) of the 1964 Rules – As per r.12(4) of the 1964 Rules, the construction of the house on the panchayat land must have been put on or before 31.03.2000 – It must be a non-cultivable land; does not result in any obstruction to the traffic and passer-by and the illegal occupation/constructed area shall be up to a maximum of 200 square yards and then only the same can be regularised/sold – The petitioners submitted the application before the competent authority and requested to sell the lands occupied by them illegally and unauthorizedly, in exercise of powers u/r. 12(4) – Their application was rejected as they were in illegal occupation of the area admeasuring more than 200 square yards – Writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed – On appeal, held: On a careful reading of r.12(4) of the 1964 Rules, it is apparent that the illegal occupation of the panchayat land can be regularised provided the area of the illegal occupation is up to a maximum of 200 square yards – The competent authority as well as the High Court both are justified in taking the view that as the respective petitioners were in illegal occupation – The persons in illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land cannot, as a matter of right, claim regularization – Regularization of the illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land can only be as per the policy of the State Government and the conditions stipulated in the Rules – If it is found that the conditions stipulated for regularisation have not been fulfilled, such persons in illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land are not entitled to regularization.

Read the full headnote (1 more paragraph)

Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396 : [2011] 2 SCR 250; State of Odisha v. Bichitrananda Das, (2020) 12 SCC 649 – referred to.

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Order of the Court was passed by M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 10.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 17869 of 2020, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the petitioners herein, the original writ petitioners have preferred the present special leave petition. 2. That the petitioners who are the residents of Village Sarsad, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat encroached upon the panchayat land and constructed the houses. It is not in
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →