Illegally occupied panchayat land can only be regularised as per state policy: SC

The Supreme Court has observed that the regularisation of the illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land can only be as per the policy of the state government and the conditions stipulated in the rules. If it is found that the conditions stipulated for regularisation have not been fulfilled, the illegal occupants are not entitled to regularisation.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that illegal occupants on panchayat land are not entitled to regularisation if the conditions for regularisation are not fulfilled as per the state government's policy.

The apex court bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah was hearing a case wherein the residents of Sarsad village in Sonipat had encroached upon the panchayat land and constructed their houses. They wanted the panchayat to sell the land occupied by them illegally under Rule 12(4) of the 1964 rules.

Their application to do so was rejected by the competent authority and thereafter the Punjab and Haryana High Court had also dismissed the plea. They approached the top court challenging the HC order.

In 2000, the Haryana government had framed a policy on the selling of panchayat land which is illegally occupied. Thereafter, in 2008, Rule 12(4) was incorporated in Punjab Village Common Lands (Regularisation) Rules, 1964, which authorises the gram panchayat to sell its non-cultivable land to the inhabitants of the village who have constructed their houses on or before March 31, 2000, subject to conditions.

Read:Forest dept's hard stance compels Kerala couple to leave home

The Rule 12(4) says that "The Gram Panchayat may with the prior approval of the state government, sell its all non-cultivable land to the inhabitants of the village who have constructed their houses on or before the 31st March, 2000, not resulting in any obstruction to the traffic and passer-by, along with open space up to 25% of the constructed area or an appurtenant area up to a maximum of 200 square yards at not less than collector rate (floor rate or market rate, whichever is higher)."

The residents' application was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Sonipat as it was found that the residents were in occupation of more than 200 yards i.e 757.37 square yards in case of one resident and 239.48 square yards in case of another. The HC had also ruled in favour of the decision.

The apex court observed that they are in "complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court as well as the competent authority" and the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Rule 12(4) of the 1964 rules.

The court dismissed the case.

Read:Budget Session: Govt answers on MSP, e-NAM in Lok Sabha