Petitioner seeks removal of illegal bamboo stalls encroaching on public foot path and direction to District Administration for demolition within two months.
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 FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 15840 of 2008 and CM Nos.7024-25 of 2009. Date of Decision: 20th April, 2009 .
Sham Sunder
...Petitioner through Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate.
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. ..Respondents through Mr. G.S.Atttariwala, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL)
The petitioner seeks a direction for removal of illegal encroachments alleged to have been made by the private respondents on the road side/foot path by way of temporary Stalls made of bamboo sticks. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the District Administration for demolition of all the illegal encroachments as directed by this Court vide order dated 23.7.2004.
Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, official respondents No. 4 and 5 have filed their counter-affidavit. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder thereto. No reply has been filed by respondent No.2. The private respondents No. 5 to 19 have also not filed any counter-affidavit.
The petitioner's specific case is that the private
respondents have encroached upon the foot path/road side which is a public property as well as a part of his plot abutting the said foot path/road side. The private respondents on the other hand are denying the allegations of encroachment on the public property.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the documents as well as the photographs on record, I am of the considered view that the matter requires immediate attention of the District Administration to determine as to whether or not the private respondents have encroached upon the public property and/or they are causing any obstruction in the smooth flow of the traffic or inconvenience to the public at large. In case it is found that the private respondents have encroached upon and/or are causing any inconvenience to the public at large, immediate action for removal of their stalls shall be taken, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. The petitioner shall be at liberty to provide necessary documents/records for the assistance of the District Magistrate, Amritsar.
Disposed of.
Dasti .
April 20, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether private respondents may be required to remove illegal encroachments on public foot path/road side
Whether District Administration should be directed to demolish encroachments
Whether judgment should be reported to reporters and digest
Sham Sunder
State of Punjab
Surya Kant
dinesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
