Section 5A(1A) confers no vested right to purchase shamilat land without statutory compliance.

The Gram Panchayat initiated proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable in Haryana, against the petitioner and two others, resulting in an eviction order dated 29 November 2024. The order was affirmed by the Collector on 27 March 2025 and the Commissioner on 26 November 2025.

The petitioner thereafter filed CWP-36820-2025 but did not press the challenge to the eviction orders. The Court instead directed the Gram Panchayat to consider his representation under Section 5A(1A), and, if favourably recommended, required the Collector to consider it in accordance with law; status quo was directed to be maintained meanwhile.

The Gram Panchayat rejected the petitioner’s request by Resolution dated 17 June 2026, observing that Khasra No. 299 was reserved for a public purpose and that the petitioner had failed to prove construction of a house before 31 March 2004.

The Deputy Commissioner consequently dismissed the representation and ordered eviction on 21 August 2026. The petitioner challenged that order, asserting that he had purchased the property through an agreement to sell dated 27 March 2021 and that the Deputy Commissioner had not given adequate reasons.

Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 21 August 2026 was liable to be quashed for want of specific reasons while rejecting the petitioner’s application under Section 5A(1A) of the 1961 Act?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to seek transfer or sale of the occupied shamilat deh land under Section 5A(1A) of the 1961 Act despite the absence of a Gram Panchayat recommendation and failure to prove that a house had been constructed on or before 31 March 2004?

Whether the petitioner’s alleged 2021 agreement to sell created any enforceable right against the eviction order or conferred a vested right to ownership?

The Court applied Section 7 of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, under which unauthorized occupants may be subjected to eviction proceedings.

It further applied Section 5A(1A), inserted by the 2024 amendment, which is an enabling—not mandatory—provision permitting a Panchayat, with prior State Government approval, to sell certain non-cultivable shamilat deh land to a village inhabitant who had constructed a house on or before 31 March 2004, subject to prescribed area, public-utility, traffic, water-body, and revenue-rasta restrictions.

A favourable recommendation by the Gram Panchayat is a necessary condition for consideration by the Collector under the procedure directed by the Court.

Section 5A(1A) does not confer a vested right upon an unauthorized occupant to demand transfer of ownership.

Once the petitioner abandoned his challenge to the eviction orders, those orders attained finality.

The Court held that the petitioner’s challenge to the original eviction orders had been expressly abandoned in the earlier writ petition; therefore, those orders had become final and could not be indirectly reopened through the subsequent representation.

The Gram Panchayat had lawfully declined to recommend the petitioner’s case because the land in Khasra No. 299 was reserved for a public purpose and the petitioner produced no reliable evidence showing that a residential house existed on or before 31 March 2004.

The only electricity bill produced was from 2025, while the petitioner’s own case was that his interest arose from a 2021 agreement to sell; moreover, the alleged agreement was not annexed to the present petition.

Since the statutory eligibility condition was not proved and the mandatory Panchayat recommendation was absent, the Deputy Commissioner had sufficient legal basis to reject the application.

Section 5A(1A) being merely enabling, the petitioner could not claim sale or transfer as of right.

The Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 21 August 2026 was upheld, and no relief against eviction or demolition was granted.