Concept of co-sharer related to ownership, not encroacher: HC

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, April 16

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that an encroacher cannot claim he is a co-sharer for taking advantage of a rule permitting the regularisation of illegal occupation of the panchayat land up to 200 square yards.

The Bench of Justice Jaswant Singh and Justice Girish Agnihotri asserted the concept of co-sharer was related to ownership and not to encroachers seeking the regularisation of their unauthorised possession by invoking the provisions of Rule 12(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Rules, 1964.

The rule makes it clear that illegal occupation of the panchayat land can be regularised, provided the area is up to a maximum of 200 square yards. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the idea behind 200 square yards cap could be that small area of land occupied illegally could be regularised/ sold.

The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the petitioners were seeking the quashing of an order dated October 6, 2020, passed by the Sonepat Deputy Commissioner (Panchayat), rejecting their claim under Rule 12(4) for regularising the construction of their houses on shamlat land.

Their claim was rejected after one of the petitioners was found to be in illegal occupation of 757.37 square yards, while the other petitioner was found to be illegally occupying 239.48 square yards. It was concluded that the area occupied by the petitioners was not covered by Rule 12(4), which provided for the sale of area up to maximum of 200 square yards.

The petitioners moved the High Court after losing up to the Supreme Court by introducing a ground foreign to the previous litigation. It was contended that the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner were erroneous as he failed to consider that 757.37 square yards was being actually shared by four co-sharers and each was in possession of less than 200 square yards. Similarly, 239.48 square yards was being shared by two co-sharers.

Dismissing the petition, the Bench ruled it was not only frivolous and devoid of any merit, but also gross abuse of process of law.