The Court declined to issue a mandamus for removing encroachments on the petitioner's property where a civil dispute with the tenant bank remains sub-judice. The Court directed the petitioner to seek modification of the interim injunction from the Civil Court.
No mandamus issued; directed petitioner to approach Civil Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P NO. 128 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 08.01.2009
Nand Kishore
...Petitioner
versus
The Administrator-cum-SDO and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
Present : Ms. Balwinder Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
This Civil Writ Petition is at the instance of a landlord, who seeks a mandamus to the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Phagwara, to provide assistance for the removal of the encroachments made on the property owned by him and rented out to respondent No.3-the Punjab National Bank, located in Nehru Nagar, G.T.Road, Phagwara.
A perusal of the writ petition reveals that there is a dispute between the petitioner-landlord and respondent-tenant Bank and in relation thereto the bank has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction, in which some ad-interim injunction has been granted by the Civil Court at Phagwara against the petitioner.
Meanwhile, the Municipal Council, Phagwara, as well as, the Civil Administration has identified certain properties wherein encroachments on the public land and/or unauthorized
C.W.P NO. 128 OF 2009
-2-
constructions have been raised. A public notice dated 21.05.2008 (Annexure P-2) has been issued, calling upon the violators/encroachers to remove those unauthorized constructions, failing which, the Municipal Council would take action against them at their own risk and cost.
The petitioner's grievance is that, notwithstanding, the fact that the dispute in the civil suit between him and the tenant bank is altogether of a different nature, the ad-interim injunction granted by the Civil Court is hampering the compliance of public notice dated 21.05.2008 in, as much as, the petitioner is unable to remove the part of the illegal construction which is occupied by the respondent-Bank. It may be noticed here that the petitioner is residing on the first floor of the premises.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that it would not be desirable for this Court to issue a mandamus as the matter between the landlord and tenant is sub-judice before the Civil Court. The only appropriate re-course would be that the petitioner may move an application for modification/vacation/clarification of the interim injunction order to the effect that the restrained order passed against the petitioner shall not come in the way for removal of the illegal construction/encroachment, if any, made in the subject premises which is presently occupied by the respondent-Bank. If the petitioner moves such an application, it shall be disposed of by
C.W.P NO. 128 OF 2009
-3-
the Civil Court in accordance with law, as early as possible, but not later than one month. It shall also be open for the petitioner to move an application before the Civil Court for impleadment of the Municipal Council or Civil Administration, Phagwara, as a party defendant to the civil suit.
Disposed of.
JANUARY 08, 2008 shalini
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court should issue a mandamus to remove encroachments on private property when a civil suit between landlord and tenant is sub-judice.
Whether an interim injunction granted in a civil suit hampers compliance with a public notice to remove unauthorized constructions.
Nand Kishore
The Administrator-cum-SDO
The Punjab National Bank
SURYA KANT
SHALINI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
