THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus SATPAL & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 12 · Decided: 03-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
v.
SATPAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2984-2985 of 2022)
MARCH 03, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
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.
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 12
12
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
13
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][18-
E-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]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2984-
2985 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2016 in RACW No.
284 of 2016 and dated 12.05.2016 in CWP No. 3167 of 2015 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.
Rakesh K. Mudgal, AAG, Kailash C. Mudgal, Vishwa Pal Singh,
Advs. for the Appellants.
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. SATPAL & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
Surender Deswal, Sahil Garg Narang, V. K. Shukla, Jayanta
Bhattac

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.