IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10562 /2014
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 35854 of 2009]
Gram Panchayat, Village Bahmanian … Appellant (s)
Versus
Jagir Singh and others … Respondent (s)
Alleging that the first respondent had encroached upon the land belonging to the Panchayat, more particularly, a public street, the appellant-Gram Panchayat has been airing its grievance before various forums. It succeeded in getting an order of eviction from the competent authority. That order was challenged in Civil Writ PetitionNo. 20116 of 2005 by the first respondent. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in judgment dated 30.05.2009, passed the following order: “It appears that the Panchayat is unnecessarily trying to create problem for the petitioner. The petitioner apparently has constructed a house and as per the report has not encroached upon any street. His plea is that it may be a private street leading to his house constructed on a land bought by him from the private respondent. This will explain the attitude of respondent No.4 in objecting to the proposal being accepted. The petitioner, thus, is given liberty to deposit the compensation at twice the Collector rate for the land in his possession in the accounts of the Gram Panchayat. This order is basically passed in equity considering that the petitioner has constructed a house and is ready to compensate the Gram Panchayat for any land, which is found to be encroached by him but is not part of any street.”The stand of first respondent was that the alleged encroachment is not on a public street but a pathway leading to the house of the fourth respondent from whom he had bought the land. However, in the Report dated 15.05.2009, made by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Jalandhar, it is mentioned that the alleged encroachment is in Khasra No. 112 which is a gairmumkin street as per Revenue records. Thus, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant-Gram Panchayat approached the Division Bench. It was contended that the nature of the land being a public street, there was no provision for regularization and the first respondent requires to be evicted….read more