Letters Patent Appeal No.704 of 2009 -1-
***
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No.704 of 2009
Date of decision: 11.08.2009
***
Sadhu Ram ...Appellant
Versus
The Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.
Present: Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant
*****
S.D.ANAND, J.
The Gram Panchayat of village Lalpur applied for ejectment of
the appellant before this Court on the plea that the area under his
occupation was reserved for a pond and that the appellant was in illegal
possession thereof. The plea filed by the Panchayat came to be allowed. In
recording that view the competent authority drew sustenance from the spot
inspection note conducted by the District Development and Panchayat
Officer-cum-Collector, Panchayat himself on 12.8.2005 and ordered
ejectment of the appellant.
The appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority
which also declined the challenge and affirmed the ejectment order. In
holding that view, the Appellate Authority was persuaded by the evidence
Letters Patent Appeal No.704 of 2009 -2-
***
adduced by the parties in support of their respective contentions and also the
spot inspection note.
The appellant, thereafter, further agitated the grievance by
filing Civil Writ Petition No.4302 of 2007 which was dismissed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 15.4.2009. The present
Letters patent Appeal is directed against that order.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant. We have also been through the record. We conclude that the
appellant deserves to be non suited.
We would, at the very outset, like to quote hereunder the fact-
based observations made by the District Development and Panchayat
Officer-cum-Collector, Panchayat in the course of the order
dated18.8.2005:-
“On 11.8.2005, the ld. counsel for both the parties come
present in the Court and their arguments were heard. This
counsel for appellant requested to inspect the spot and the
respondent had given his consent to it. Time was given for
inspection of spot. On 12.8.2005 the inspection of the place in
dispute was made on the spot and was inspected in the presence
of the parties. The respondent told the land in his possession to
be 25 feet from North to South and 70 foot from East to West.
As per the places told by the respondent, the length marked
place from North to South was found to be 36 feet and East to
West was found to be 66 feet 6 inch. Plan was prepared at the
spot. As per the spot the Kotha of respondent is constructed at
the place in dispute and length of Kotha is 13-1/4 and breadth
Letters Patent Appeal No.704 of 2009 -3-
***was found to be 13 feet. Girders were lying at the Kotha heap
of Cheff and fodder cutting machine is installed at the spot.
Both the parties have given their consent about the
measurement and they have but their signatures below it. Both
the parties have also put their signatures on the site plan
prepared the spot. From the spot inspection it has been
found that the site in dispute is in the shape of a pond and
the respondent has raised illegal construction on it after
filling the earth. After perusing the record of the case,
statement of parties and inspecting the spot it is clear that
the respondent is in illegal possession of the land in
dispute.”
Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to find any
factual error in the above finding recorded by the competent authority. In
that view of things, the only inference deducible in the circumstances of the
case is that the appellant is in illegal possession of the land under reference
and his ejectment therefrom had been competently ordered by the District
Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Panchayat.
The petition shall stand dismissed in limine.
(S.D.ANAND)
JUDGE
August 11, 2009 ( J.S.KHEHAR)
Pka JUDGE