Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act – Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964 – r. 12 – Unauthorised possession – Respondents were alleged to be in the possession of a land, which was claimed to be belonging to Gram Panchayat and was meant for construction of school thus giving rise to the dispute between the appellant and the respondents – On the application of the sarpanch, the demarcation proceedings were carried out with respect to the land in which the unauthorized possession of the respondent was shown – The eviction proceeding were initiated and the respondent was ultimately evicted and the appeal by the respondents before the Collector and thereafter before the Commissioner was rejected – Writ petition – High Court directed for fresh demarcation – Pursuant thereto, Local Commissioner filed its report, the High Court ultimately directed 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 respondent, 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 – Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant preferred appeal before the Supreme Court – Held : Under the circumstances, the High Court has committed a very serious error in directing to legalise the unauthorized occupation and possession made by the original writ petitioners on payment of market price – Even the other directions issued by the High Court are not capable of being implemented,namely, to segregate the vacant land from the residential house and which can be separated and utilised for earmarked purpose, i.e., school premises – Further there is no other panchayati land and/or other land, which is available, which can be used as school premises/playground and the adjacent land belongs to some private persons and they are not ready to part with their land to be used as school premises/playground. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. 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. As observed hereinabove, there is no playground at all. The school is surrounded by the unauthorized construction made by the original writ petitioners. Therefore, the unauthorized occupation and possession of the land, which is reserved for the school and the playground, cannot be directed to be legalized. There cannot be any school without playground. Even the students, who study in such a school are entitled to a good environment. [Para 4][18E-F]
2. Under the circumstances, the High Court has committed a very serious error in directing to legalise the unauthorized occupation and possession made by the original writ petitioners on payment of market price. Even the other directions issued by the High Court are not capable of being implemented, namely, to segregate the vacant land from the residential house and which can be separated and utilised for earmarked purpose, i.e., school premises. 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. There is no other panchayati land and/or other land, which is available, which can be used as school premises/playground. The adjacent land belongs to some private persons and they are not ready to part with their land to be used as school premises/playground. [Para 4.1][18-G-H; 19-A-B]
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.
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.