Name of the Case:. The State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Satpal & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 2984-2985 OF 2022
Judges Name: Hon’ble Judges M.R. Shah, J, B.V. Nagarathna J
Order dated: 03.03.2023

Facts of the case: 

1. The Respondents are in the unauthorised possession of the land which belongs to the Gram Panchayat. On the application of the sarpanch, Gram panchayat, a Demarcation was carried with regard to Khasra No. 61/2 and 62 the unauthorized possession in the original writ has been shown on account of that eviction proceedings were started on 25.03.2009 under the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act. Where the Assistant Collector passed the ejectment order on 30.08.2011. Aggrieved by the order an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner which was also rejected on 04.07.2014. Later the Respondents preferred an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a Writ to quash the orders date 30.08.2011, 02.05.2012 and 04.07.2014.
2. When the High Court stated that the land encroached by the original Writ petitioners were a part of school premises and they were willing to give equivalent vacant land in exchange out of land adjoining the school premises. Hence a fresh demarcation was directed to be conducted by the Local Commissioner which established beyond doubt that were in possession of unauthorised land of the panchayat and the High Court directed the Panchayat to take appropriate decision on merits and sell its non-cultivable land for collector’s rate to the inhabitants who settled before 31st March 2000. Later the review application was also preferred by the Respondent which was also dismissed.
3. Pursuant to the fresh demarcation order passed dated 29.03.2022 the following area were illegally possessed by the people  was about 5 kanal and 4 marla it was also found that the adjoining land was owned by some other people and said land was about 1km away from Khasra No. 61/2 and 62, Thus established that the 5 Kanal and 4 Marla are encroached by the Original Writ Petitioners out of 11 kanals and 15 Marlas reserved for school hence there was no playground for the school and the school are surrounded by unauthorized buildings.
4. Under these circumstances a serious error has been committed and no school can be without playground and the directions of High Court cannot be implemented and the encroached land is also not used for residential purpose solely which is also covered with vegetation and therefore it is not possible to segregate and the land used for school premises. Hence the High court directions are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed.

Supreme Court observed/held as follows:

• It is not possible to segregate and separate the land used for school premises. Where there is no panchayat land or any other land available which can be used for school playground 
• The students who study in the school are entitled to good environment and a playground 
• directing to legalise the unauthorized occupation and possession made by the original writ petitioners on the land, which is earmarked for school premises / playground is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
• The original writ petitioners are granted 12 months’ time to vacate the land, which is occupied by them unauthorizedly and if within one year from today. Failing which they shall be removed from the unauthorized possession. With this, the Hon’ble Court allowed the appeals to the aforesaid extent.