IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.19470 of 2010
Date of Decision: 20.10.2011
Hukam Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Rajiv Parshad, DAG Haryana for respondent No.1.
Mr.Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for
Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr.Sushil Jain, Advocate for respondent Nos.6 to 14.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Municipal Corporation- respondent No.2 (for brevity "the MC") is owner of land, comprised in rectangle No.25, bearing Killa No.18/1(2-3), worth crores of rupees, situated in village Sarai Khawaja, Tehsil and Distt. Faridabad. The private respondent Nos.3 to 22 are stated to have encroached upon and are in its un-authorized possession.
2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the petitioner that although the private respondents have illegally encroached upon and are in un-authorized possession of the indicated land of the MC, but it did not take any effective steps to remove the un-authorized encroachment. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner preferred the instant writ petition for the issuance of directions to the respondent-MC to remove the un-authorized encroachment/possession of the private respondents from its land in question, in the manner depicted hereinbefore, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Faced with the situation, the respondents contested the claim of the petitioner. The respondent-MC filed its separate written statement, in which, it was admitted that the land in litigation belongs to it and the MC has already issued the notices dated 14.10.2009 (Annexures R2/1 to R2/4) to eject the private respondents under section 408 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). The matter is also stated to be sub-judice before the civil Court.
4. Sequelly, the private respondents filed their separate written statement, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the writ petition, concealment of facts, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. On merits, it was pleaded that they are in actual physical possession of the land in dispute since 1866. The Chief Administrator of the MC was claimed to have sent a proposal to the State Government to sell the land in dispute to them, sought consent to allot it to Shanker Lal son of Dal Chand (since deceased), now being represented by his sons Purshottam and Lekh Raj (since deceased), through LRs (respondent Nos.8 to 10) & others and received the payment, vide letters (Annexures R6/1 to R6/9). According to the private respondents that they have deposited the amount and the MC has transferred the land in litigation in their favour, by way of sale deed, bearing No.5024 dated 11.10.1995. In this manner, they have become owners and in possession of the land in question and are paying house tax regularly. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the relevant record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be partly accepted in the following context.
6. As is evident from the record that, the petitioner claimed that the private respondents are in un-authorized possession of land comprised in rectangle No.25, bearing Killa No.18/1(2-3). On the contrary, according to private respondents, they have purchased the land under their possession from the MC. Although they have not produced on record the sale deed, by means of which, they have stated to have purchased the land from the MC, but it is not a matter of dispute that the sale deed is in respect of land, bearing Khasra No.100 (not of land in question bearing Killa No.18/1(2-3)).
7. Not only that, the matter was further clarified in the written statement filed by the MC, wherein, it was specifically pleaded that the disputed land belongs to it and it has already issued the notices (Annexures R2/1 to R2/4) to private respondents under section 408 of the Act for removal of the illegal encroachment from it. These notices were issued on 14.10.2009. The matter is claimed to be still pending and what further action has been taken by the MC, in pursuance thereof, remains an unfolded mystery. Meaning thereby, the MC is sleeping over the matter, which corroborates the case of the petitioner in this relevant connection. Therefore, to me, it is the statutory duty of the MC to take appropriate action, in view of ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Jagpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others 2011(1) RCR (Civil) 912 in this relevant direction.
8. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, during the course of subsequent proceedings, the instant writ petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the Commissioner of MC-respondent No.2 is directed to consider, decide the fate of notices (Annexures R2/1 to R2/4) and to take appropriate action in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(Mehinder Singh Sullar)
Judge
20.10.2011
No comments:
Post a Comment