IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5130 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 2745 of 2005)

Suraj Bhan                    …Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Dy. Commnr., Sonepat & Ors.        …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

1.Leave granted.  

2. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the

appellant against the impugned judgment dated

4th of January, 2005 passed by the High Court of

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ

Petition  No.  12158  of  2003  whereby  the  High

Court  dismissed  the  Writ  Petition  filed  by  the

appellant.

1

3.The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal

may be narrated as under:

The  appellant  alleged  that  he  was  in

possession  of  the  land  in  dispute  measuring

40.3’  ft  x  5  ft.,  consisting  of  a  bathroom thereon

since the time of his father (hereinafter referred to

as the ‘said land’).  In respect of the said land, the

respondent  Nos.  5  to  7  filed  a  civil  suit  for

mandatory injunction in the Court of Subordinate

Judge, 1st Class, Rohtak against the appellant for a

direction upon him to remove the bricks lying in the

said land and also for a direction to the father of the

appellant to close his door opened on the plot of the

Chopal. The Civil Court decreed the suit on 16th of

August, 1976.  

First  appeal  was  filed  by  the  father  of  the

appellant in the Court of Additional District Judge,

Rohtak, against the aforesaid judgment, which was

dismissed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the

2

judgment of affirmance passed by the courts below,

the  father  of  the  appellant  filed  a  regular  second

appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed

by the judgment dated 2nd of June,  1987, against

which a SLP was filed in this Court, in respect of

which leave was granted.

4. This Court while disposing of the said appeal

passed  an  order  allowing  3  feet  passage  to  the

appellant in the said land for ingress and egress to

his house on payment of compensation.   

5. The  Gram  Panchayat  Barona,  Respondent

no.4 herein, filed an ejectment application against

the  appellant,  under  Section  7  (2)  of  the  Punjab

Village  Common  Lands  (Regulation)  Act,  1961

alleging that the appellant had illegally encroached

upon some area of Khasra no. 33/100, which was

reserved  in  the  consolidation  for  Harijans  Chopal

and vested in Gram Panchayat. The said application

3

was  allowed  by  Assistant  Collector,  Ist  Grade,

Sonepat  by  order  dated  29th of  March,  1994.

Against  the  aforesaid  order  an  appeal  was  filed

before the Collector, Sonepat and the Collector vide

order  dated  22nd of  September,  1994 directed  the

appellant  to  get  a  resolution  passed  from

respondent no.4 for the purchase of the said land

within six months and get the proceedings for the

purchase of land in order, failing which he would be

treated as dispossessed.

Thereafter,  the appellant submitted an application

dated  29th of  November,  1994  to  the  respondent

no.3 for permission to deposit the amount.

6. It  is the case of the appellant that the Gram

Panchayat passed a resolution on 22nd of April,1995

requiring  the  appellant  to  deposit  Rs.8000/-  and

further requiring the case to be sent to the Director

Panchayat, Haryana for approval.  Accordingly, the

4

appellant  deposited  the  above  mentioned  amount

on 22nd of April,1995.

7. However it was alleged by the Gram Panchayat

that no resolution dated 22nd of April,1995 was ever

passed by it.

8. Thereafter  a  representation  was  filed  by  one

Zile  Singh  and  other  residents  of  Village  Barona

before  the  Deputy  Commissioner,  Sonepat,

respondent  no.1  herein,  for  cancellation  of  order

dated 22nd of September, 1994. The appellant also

approached  the  respondent  for  getting  the

registration of  sale  in his favour.  The Respondent

No.1  passed  an  order  dated  29th of  July,2003,

holding that since the above mentioned amount of

Rs.8000/-  was  not  deposited  by  the  appellant

within the stipulated period mentioned in the order

dated 22nd of September,1994, the possession of the

appellant was illegal and unauthorized. Respondent

No.1 further directed Respondent Nos.3 & 4 to take

5

steps  to  remove  the  appellant  from  being  in

unauthorized  possession  of  the  said  land.

Respondent No.4 was further directed to refund the

amount deposited by the appellant to him.

9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant

filed writ petition no. 12158 of 2003 before the High

Court  for  quashing  the  order  dated  29th of

July,2003  and  for  directing  the  Respondent  to

execute  sale  deed  in favour  of  the  appellant.  The

High  Court  dismissed  the  Writ  Petition  of  the

appellant  by  its  judgment  dated  4th of

January,2005.

10. Being  aggrieved  and  dissatisfied  with  the

aforesaid order of the High Court, the SLP was filed,

which on grant of leave was heard in presence of

the learned counsel for the parties.  

6

11. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties and we have also examined the materials on

record  including  the  orders  of  the  High  Court  as

well as of the other authorities as mentioned herein

above.  After  hearing  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties  and  after  going  through  the  materials  on

record, we do not find any reason to interfere with

the order passed by the High Court.

12. A bare perusal of the order of the High Court

would show that a stand was taken by the appellant

that the amount of Rs.8000/- was deposited by him

in  compliance  with  the  resolution  of  Gram

Panchayat dated 22nd of April,1995. It also appears

from the  order  of  the  High  Court  that  the  Gram

Panchayat had taken a specific  stand that as per

their record, no resolution dated 22nd of April, 1995

was ever passed by it and that the Gram Panchayat

neither  had  sent  any  resolution  to  the  Director,

Panchayats,  for  approval  of  the  same  nor  any

7

approval was ever granted for transfer of the land

which was mandatory as per Rule 8(3) of the Punjab

Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules 1964 (in

short ‘the Rules’). The High Court on consideration

of Rule 8(3) of the Rules and other materials came

to  a  conclusion  that  neither  any  resolution  was

passed  nor  the  same  was  ever  approved  by  any

competent  authority.  The  High  Court  went  on  to

consider that in view of Rule 8(3) of the Rules, the

Gram  Panchayat  was  competent  to  pass  the

resolution subject to approval by the Director. Since

the Collector before passing the order dated 22nd of

September,  1994  ought  to  have  considered  that

such resolution ought to have been taken in terms

of  Rule  8(3)  of  the  Rules  and  approval  of  the

Director  was  also  mandatorily  required,  the  High

Court held that the order passed by the Collector on

22nd of  September,  1994  was  without  jurisdiction

and therefore no effect could be given on the said

order of the Collector and accordingly the appellant

8

became illegal occupant of that portion of the land.

It is also evident from the record that this Court in

an earlier proceeding admittedly allotted only 3 feet

wide street from the land of the Harijans Chopal to

the appellant but in spite of that allotment made by

this  Court,  the  appellant  encroached  upon 5  feet

more area to widen the street. Keeping in mind the

conduct of the appellant as well as the fact that no

resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat nor

any approval was taken from the Director, the High

Court refused to interfere with the order dated 29th

of July, 2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner,

Sonepat. We also find that the order passed by the

Collector directing the appellant to get a resolution

passed from the Gram Panchayat, for the purchase

of the disputed land was without jurisdiction as the

same was passed without complying with Rule 8(3)

of the Rules and such order even if it was passed

had  to  be  approved  by  the  Director  which  was

admittedly  not  done.  That  apart,  admittedly  the

9

appellant did not fulfill the condition of the order of

the  Collector,  as  he  failed  to  get  the  sale

proceedings completed within the time stipulated in

the aforesaid order.  Therefore, the High Court while

exercising its discretionary power under Article 226

of  the  Constitution  was  fully  justified  in  holding

that no interference could be made in respect of the

order dated 29th of July, 2003 passed by the Deputy

Commissioner, Sonepat. Such being the position, in

our view, in the exercise of our power under Article

136 of the Constitution, we do not find any ground

to  interfere  with  the  impugned  order  of  the  High

Court.  

13. Further  more,  in  the  earlier  occasions,  this

Court had taken into consideration the entire facts

and directed that the appellant should be allowed 3

feet  space  and  after  getting  possession  and

allotment  of  3  feet  space,  it  is  now  an  admitted

position  that  the  appellant  had  encroached  a

10

further  5  feet  which  should  not  be  permitted  to

continue.  

14. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any

substance  in  this  appeal  and  the  appeal  is  thus

dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

……………………J.        [Tarun

Chatterjee]

New Delhi;                 …………… ………J. August 19, 2008.   [P.Sathasivam]

11