The highest court docket was listening to a plea filed by residents of Sarsad village in Tehsil Gohana in Haryana’s Sonepat district who encroached upon panchayat land and constructed homes.
The Haryana authorities in 2000 framed a coverage relating to sale of panchayat land in unauthorised possession outdoors ‘Abadi Deh’ (the residential space of a income property). Haryana additionally amended the Punjab Village Frequent Lands (Regulation) Guidelines, 1964 and issued a notification in 2008.
Thereafter, in 2008, Rule 12(4) was included within the 1964 Guidelines when it comes to the notification dated January 3, 2008, which authorises Gram Panchayat to promote its non- cultivable land in Shamlat Deh (vacant land) to the inhabitants of the village who’ve constructed their homes on or earlier than March 31, 2000. The petitioners on this case, who have been in unlawful possession of the land belonging to Gram Panchayat, made an software below Rule 12(4) of the Punjab Village Frequent Lands (Regulation) Guidelines, 1964.
The Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat on perusal of the report and the location report, rejected their software holding that because the candidates are in unlawful occupation of the realm greater than the required space as much as a most of 200 sq. yards, they aren’t entitled to the advantage of Rule 12(4). The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition difficult the order handed by the authority.
The apex court docket held the competent authority in addition to the excessive court docket each are justified in taking the view that because the respective petitioners are in unlawful occupation of the realm greater than the required space as much as a most of 200 sq. yards, they aren’t entitled to the advantage of Rule 12(4). “It’s required to be famous that the individuals in unlawful occupation of the Authorities Land/Panchayat Land can’t, as a matter of proper, declare regularization.
“Regularisation of the unlawful occupation of the Authorities Land/Panchayat Land can solely be as per the coverage of the State Authorities and the situations stipulated within the Guidelines,” the bench stated. The highest court docket stated that whether it is discovered that the situations stipulated for regularisation haven’t been fulfilled, such individuals in unlawful occupation of the federal government or panchayat land will not be entitled to regularisation.