Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1829 OF 2021
Joginder and another …Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others …Respondents
O R D E R
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
Signature Not Verified
writ petition preferred by the petitioners herein, the original writ
Digitally signed by
Sanjay Kumar
Date: 2021.02.05
15:05:30 IST
Reason:
petitioners have preferred the present special leave petition.
1
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 dispute that the
lands on which the petitioners have constructed the houses vest
in the Gram Panchayat. That in the year 2000, the Government
of Haryana framed a policy regarding sale of panchayat land in
unauthorised possession inside outside the Abadi Deh. The
Government of Haryana also amended the Punjab Village
Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘1964 Rules’) and issued a notification dated 1.8.2001 in
this regard. Thereafter, in the year 2008, Rule 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 in Shamlat Deh 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 Rule 12(4) of
the 1964 Rules. Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules, which is relevant
in the present case, reads as under:
“Rule 12(1) A Panchayat may, with the previous approval of the
State Government, sell land in shamlat deh vested in it under the
Act for—
(4) The Gram Panchayat may with the prior approval of the
State Government, sell its noncultivable land in shamlat deh to
2
the inhabitants of the village who have constructed their houses on
st
or before the 31 March, 2000, not resulting in any obstruction to
the traffic and passerby, along with open space up to 25% of the
constructed area or an appurtenant area up to a maximum of 200
square yards at not less than collector rate [floor rate or market
rate, whichever is higher].”
Thus, as per Rule 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 noncultivable land; does not result in
any obstruction to the traffic and passerby 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.
3. The petitioners herein submitted the application before the
competent authority along with the resolution of the concerned
panchayat and requested to sell the lands occupied by them
illegally and unauthorizedly, in exercise of powers under Rule 12,
more particularly Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules. After giving an
opportunity of personal hearing, the competent authority, i.e.,
Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat on perusal of the record and the
site report, which was verified by visiting the relevant place and
having found that the petitioners are in illegal occupation of the
area admeasuring more than 200 square yards, i.e, 757.37
square yards in case of the petitionerJoginder and 239.48
3
square yards in case of the petitionerKaramveer, rejected the
said application. The order passed by the competent authority
rejecting the application of the petitioners came to be challenged
by the petitioners before the High Court. By the impugned
judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has
dismissed the said writ petition. While dismissing the writ
petition, the High Court has also considered the decision of this
Court in the case of Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in
(2011) 11 SCC 396 , by which this Court directed to all the State
Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes
for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram
Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and these
must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the
common use of the villagers of the village.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court, the original writ
petitioners have preferred the present special leave petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has
vehemently submitted that both, the competent authority as well
as the High Court have misread and misinterpreted Rule 12(4) of
4
the 1964 Rules. It is vehemently submitted that only in a case
where the constructed area is more than 200 square yards, bar
under Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules shall be applicable.
Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners,
even if the total area of the unauthorised occupation is more than
200 square yards, i.e., constructed area plus the open space
area, the same is required to be regularised in exercise of powers
under Rule 12(4). It is submitted that in the present case, as
such, there was no specific finding by the competent authority as
to how much was the area over which the houses of the
petitioners have been constructed and how much was the open
space area. It is submitted that Rule 12(4) does not specify or
limit any area with regard to houses constructed and it only
creates a limit of 25% open space of the constructed area up to a
maximum of 200 square yards. It is submitted that therefore the
cases of the petitioners squarely fall within Rule 12(4) of the 1964
Rules. It is submitted that in the present case, even the Gram
Panchayat also passed a resolution which was placed for
consideration before the competent authority.
5
5.1 It is further submitted that even the High Court has
materially erred in relying upon the decision of this Court in the
case of Jagpal Singh (supra) . It is submitted that in the case of
Jagpal Singh (supra) , this Court did not consider Rule 12(4) of the
1964 Rules.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners at length.
7. It is to be noted that the competent authority after giving an
opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioners and on
perusal of the record and the site report which was verified by
visiting the relevant place found that petitioner no.1 – Joginder
was in illegal occupation of the area admeasuring 757.37 square
yards and petitioner no.2 Karamveer was found to be in illegal
occupation of the area admeasuring 239.48 square yards,
rejected the prayer of the petitioners to sell the land in exercise of
powers under Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules. The competent
authority has specifically observed and held that the conditions
mentioned in Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules have not been
satisfied. The submission on behalf of the petitioners, noted
hereinabove, that the cap of 200 square yards shall be with
6
respect to constructed area only and not to open space or an
appurtenant area has no substance and cannot be accepted. On
a careful reading of Rule 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. It includes the constructed area,
open space up to 25% of the constructed area or appurtenant
area. Therefore, on a fair reading of Rule 12(4), in case of an
illegal occupation of the area up to a maximum of 200 square
yards including the constructed area, appurtenant area and open
space area can be regularised and sold at not less than collector
rate (floor rate or market rate, whichever is higher). The idea
behind keeping the cap of 200 square yards may be that the
small area of the lands occupied illegally can be regularised/sold.
If the submission on behalf of the petitioners is accepted, in that
case, it may happen that somebody has put up a construction on
195 square yards and is in illegal occupation of 500 square yards
area, in that case, though he has encroached upon the total area
of about 700 square yards, he shall be entitled to purchase the
land under Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules, which is not the
intention of Rule 12(4). Therefore, the competent authority as
7
well as the High Court both are justified in taking the view that
as the respective petitioners are in illegal occupation of the area
more than the required area up to a maximum of 200 square
yards, they are not entitled to the benefit of Rule 12(4).
8. It is required to be noted that 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. As
observed by this Court in the recent decision in the case of State
of Odisha v. Bichitrananda Das, reported in (2020) 12 SCC 649,
an applicant who seeks the benefit of the policy must comply
with its terms. In the present case, the policy which was
formulated by the State Government which culminated in Rule
12(4) of the 1964 Rules specifically contained a stipulation to the
effect that the illegal/unauthorised occupation up to a maximum
8
of 200 square yards only can be sold on regularisation and on
fulfilment of other conditions mentioned in Rule 12(4) of the 1964
Rules. The petitioners are found to be in illegal occupation of the
area of more than 200 square yards. Therefore, one of the
conditions mentioned in Rule 12(4) is not satisfied and therefore
both, the competent authority as well as the High Court have
rightly held that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of
the provisions of Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules. We are in
complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court as
well as the competent authority.
9. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Jagpal
Singh (supra) is required to be referred to. In the said decision,
this Court had come down heavily upon such trespassers who
have illegally encroached upon on the Gram Sabha/Gram
Panchayat Land by using muscle powers/money powers and in
collusion with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat.
In the said decision, this Court has observed that “such kind of
blatant illegalities must not be condoned”. It is further observed
that “even if there is a construction the same is required to be
9
removed and the possession of the land must be handed back to
the Gram Panchayat”. It is further observed that “regularizing
such illegalities must not be permitted because it is Gram Sabha
land which must be kept for the common use of the villagers of
the village”. Thereafter, this Court has issued the following
directions:
23. Before parting with this case, we give directions to all the
“
State Governments in the country that they should prepare
schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram
Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and these
must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the
common use of villagers of the village. For 1 this purpose the Chief
Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are
directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of
the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy
eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause
notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation
or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political
connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning
this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession.
Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g.
where lease has been granted under some Government notification
to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other
public utility on the land.”
In view of the above also, the prayer of the petitioners for
regularization of their illegal occupation of the panchayat land
cannot be accepted.
10
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove,
the present special leave petition deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed.
…..……………………………………J.
[Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
New Delhi; ………………………………………..J.
February 05, 2021. [M.R. Shah]
11