Allowed

Tek Ram v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Feb 2009CWP/5998/1983

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition and quashed orders by the Assistant Collector and Collector of Hisar that dismissed an application for eviction of encroachers from a public street. The Court held the officials failed statutory duty and directed immediate removal of encroachment within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 21.12.1981 and Annexure P-3 quashed. Directions to remove encroachment within 15 days given to Collector and Assistant Collector.

Tek Ram Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No. 5998 of 1983

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No. 5998 of 1983 Date of decision:- 18.2.2009.

Tek Ram

...petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶9

...respondents.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl. AAG, Haryana for respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶13

RANJIT SINGH J.

¶14

The petitioner has filed this writ petition to impugn the order passed by the Collector, Hisar who despite having found that the respondents had encroached this street declined to pass an order of eviction.

¶15

The application under Section 7 of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 to remove unauthorised possession was filed against respondents No. 3 to 5. They had allegedly encroached street belonging to the Gram Panchayat. As per the revenue record the width of the disputed common street is 33 feet whereas the width of the street at disputed spot was found only 11 feet and remaining street was found to have been encroached by respondents No. 3 to 5. Having found so, Assistant Collector most unjustifiably observed that 11 feet, common street is sufficient and dismissed the application. Still strangely, the appeal filed before the

¶16

Civil Writ Petition No. 5998 of 1983

¶17

¶18

Collector was also dismissed after observing that the part of the street had been encroached by respondents No. 3 to 5. How on the earth, any public authority could pass this unreasonable and unjust order can only be explained by someone like the official respondents.

¶19

Apparently, the authorities have not acting in accordance with law but appeared to have favoured respondents No. 3 to 5 unreasonably. The observation made by the Assistant Collector and the Collector that there is no need to evict the respondents even if they have encroached the street cannot be sustained with any logic. In fact the Assistant Collector as well as the Collector have failed to perform their statutory duty. Such an order could not have been made due to some extraneous consideration. Further strange would it be to notice that despite directions issued by this Court from time to time for the respondents to perform their statutory duties, the matter has remained as it is. The Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of the village seems to be conniving with private respondents No. 3 to 5. They were put to notice through a bailable warrants vide order dated 21.4.2004 but still were able to evade adjudication of this writ petition. Ultimately this Court took up the writ petition for hearing on 16.2.2005 when it was observed that the Gram Panchayat, Badala appears to be hand in glove with encroachers of the public street. Not only that, Collector, Hisar was directed to ensure that the Gram Panchayat, Badala and/or any authority like Development and Panchayat Department put in appearance. Still respondents No. 3 to 5 were able to avoid appearing before the Court. Ultimately the counsel for respondents No. 3 to 5 made a statement before the

¶20

Civil Writ Petition No. 5998 of 1983

¶21

¶22

Court that the matter has been settled.

¶23

Mr. R.K. Malik, senior counsel representing the petitioner would point out that he has no instructions that the matter has been compromised. Otherwise also this is not an issue which is between the private respondents. Encroachment of a public path or street is not something which can be compromised between the parties. From the details of events as noticed it is clearly seen that the official respondents have failed to perform their statutory duties. They cannot be allowed to behave in this manner.

¶24

While allowing this writ petition the order passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hansi dated 21.12.1981 and the order passed by the Collector, Annexure P-3 are quashed. District Collector, Hisar and Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hansi, District Hisar, therefore, are commanded to ensure that the encroachment is removed immediately and within 15 days of receipt of copy of this order. The copy of this order is forwarded to Chief Secretary of State of Haryana to ensure compliance of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the others. He would also see, if any, action is required to be taken against the Assistant Collector and the Collector who have passed the impugned orders if they are still in service.

¶25

The present petition is allowed in above terms.

¶26

February 18, 2009 rts

¶27

( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE

Tek Ram v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tek Ram v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudarshan Kumar Vs Addl.Director C/H Pb & Ors.

Charan Dass Vs Financial Commissioner and Others

Sudarshan and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dalip Singh & Ors. Vs Addl.Director C/H Pb. & Ors.

Sukhram Dass etc. Vs District & Sessions Judge, H.P

Nawab @Nabbi Vs State of Haryana