Dismissed

Sampuran Singh v. Directore Land Records Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Oct 2010CWP/18521/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order quashing a delay-condoned application by a Gram Panchayat for a path. The Court found the explanation sufficient, noting the Director corrected an earlier error and allotted alternative land. The petition was dismissed as substantial justice was done.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the impugned order allowing the path and alternative land remains in force.

Sampuran Singh Vs Directore Land Records Punjab… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CWP No.18521 of 2008

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.18521 of 2008 Date of decision:08.10.2010

¶5

Sampuran Singh ..... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Director Land Records, Punjab, Jalandhar and another ..... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶9

Present: Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms.Anu Pal, AAG, Punjab for respondent no.1. Mr.G.S.Nagra, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶11

¶12

RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL)

¶13

The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 11.10.2007, passed by the Director Land Records, Punjab, Jalandhar, providing a path to the Gram Panchayat.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Gram Panchayat filed an application, under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) after a delay of 45 years. In the absence of any explanation, in the application, for this delay or any reason recorded by the Director Land Records, while condoning the delay, the impugned order is a nullity. It is also argued that though the petitioner has been compensated with alternative land, the passage provided to the Gram Panchayat has bifurcated his land.

¶15

Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, however, submits that, the application filed under Section 42 of the Act, contains a cogent explanation for the delay. The Gram Panchayat was using the path 'AB' but when the

¶16

CWP No.18521 of 2008

¶17

-2-

¶18

petitioner threatened to block this path, the Gram Panchayat examined the revenue record and as no passage was allotted to the Gram Panchayat during consolidation, it was left with no other recourse but to file an application for providing a path. It is further submitted that the petitioner has concealed the filing of a prior civil suit, the fact that the impugned order has been implemented, the mutation has been sanctioned, alternative land has been allotted to the petitioner and the path is operational at the spot.

¶19

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is true that the Director Land Records, has not recorded any reason for condoning delay. However, a perusal of the petition filed under Section 42 of the Act, discloses that the Gram Panchayat has furnished “sufficient cause” for this delay. The Gram Panchayat was using the path 'AB' to approach its land. The petitioner apparently raised an objection and prevented the Gram Panchayat from using this passage. The Gram Panchayat examined the revenue record and found that this path did not belong to the Gram Panchayat and that during consolidation a path had been allotted to its land. The bonafide explanation offered by the Gram Panchayat was sufficient to condone the delay. The canal authorities were required to allow a path during consolidation. The Director Land Records has rectified this error and allotted alternative land to the petitioner.

¶20

The petitioner on the other hand concealed the filing of a prior civil suit, the implementation of the impugned order, the sanction of mutations, the allotment of alternative land and the fact that the path is already running at the spot. The writ petition was filed an year after the passing of the impugned order.

¶21

In view of what has been stated hereinabove, it would not be

¶22

CWP No.18521 of 2008

¶23

-3-

¶24

appropriate to interfere with the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as substantial justice has been done, by allotting a path to the Gram Panchayat and alternative land to the petitioner.

¶25

Dismissed.

¶26

08.10.2010 shamsher

¶27

[ RAJIVE BHALLA ] JUDGE

Sampuran Singh v. Directore Land Records Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sampuran Singh v. Directore Land Records Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lilawatli & Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gurdev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mani Ram etc. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Balraj Singh Dhillon & Anr. Vs Tarwinder Singh

Baljit Singh Vs Sinder Kaur and Ors.

Shamsher Singh Vs Financial Commissioner and Ors.