P&H HC Restores Eviction Orders Against Panchayat-Land Encroachers, Says Commissioner’s Revision Was Not Maintainable As No Title Issue Was Decided

The petitioner, an inhabitant of the village, initiated proceedings under Section 7(2) of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, concerning land recorded as gair mumkin johad.

The Assistant Collector ordered the eviction of ten persons and directed that proceedings be initiated against other persons identified as encroachers in a demarcation report.

The Collector upheld that order and likewise directed action against the other occupants. On revision by some of the private respondents, the Commissioner set aside both orders and remanded the matter, reasoning that action had not been taken against the other occupants. The petitioner challenged the Commissioner’s order.

Section 7 of the 1961 Act empowers an Assistant Collector of the first grade to order the eviction of a person in wrongful or unauthorised possession of shamilat deh.

Under the proviso to Section 7(1), where a question of title is raised and prima facie established by documents, the Assistant Collector must decide that question.

Section 13-B provides an appeal to the Collector against an order under Section 7(1) or (2), while the Commissioner’s revisional jurisdiction is confined to proceedings involving an order under the proviso to Section 7(1).

In Amar Pal and others v. State of Haryana and others, CWP-12498-2025, the Court held that a revision before the Commissioner is not maintainable where no question of title was decided under that proviso.

The petitioner’s original proceeding was under Section 7, and neither the Assistant Collector nor the Collector raised or decided any question of title. The Commissioner therefore had no revisional jurisdiction under Section 13-B, making the revision—and the resulting order—unsustainable.

Further, the fact that other occupants might also require eviction proceedings did not justify setting aside the eviction orders against the private respondents; action against those occupants could be pursued separately.

The Court allowed the petition, set aside the Commissioner’s order dated 29 May 2024, and upheld the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector.