Partly allowed

Harjit Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Jul 2010CWP/18698/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners gave up challenge to ejectment orders under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961, seeking liberty to file a Section 11 application for title adjudication. The Court affirmed the orders of ejectment but allowed stay pending such application filed within one month.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of ejectment affirmed; liberty granted to file Section 11 title application within one month, staying ejectment operation during that period.

Harjit Singh and Anr. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CWP No.18698 of 2007

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.18698 of 2007 Date of decision:27.07.2010

¶5

Harjit Singh and another

¶6

...... Petitioners

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Punjab through the Secretary, Panchayat, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, and others

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA. Present: Mr.R.K.Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr.Nakul Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.4.

¶11

¶12

RAJIVE BHALLA.J (Oral)

¶13

After addressing arguments for some time, counsel for the petitioners gives up challenge to the validity of the impugned orders of ejectment, passed under Section 7 of the of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) 1961, Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) but prays that as the land in dispute, does not belong to the Gram Panchayat, the petitioners may be granted liberty to file an application under Section 11 of the Act, seeking adjudication of the question of title. It is further prayed that operation of the impugned orders may be kept in abeyance till the petitioners file an appropriate application under Section 11 of the Act.

¶14

Counsel for the Gram Panchayat states that as the question of ownership has already been decided, though in proceedings under Section 7 of the Act, the writ petition should be dismissed.

¶15

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The land in dispute is recorded as the ownership of the Gram

¶16

CWP No.18698 of 2007

¶17

-2-

¶18

Panchayat. The petitioners however, assert that this land is Jumla Mushtarka Malkan but was mutated in the name of the Gram Panchayat, pursuant to a letter issued by the Government. The petitioners further assert that they are owners in possession, as proprietors and therefore, are entitled to remain in possession of this land as it was neither reserved nor used for common purposes.

¶19

As the petitioners have given up challenge to the orders of ejectment, the orders dated 26.11.2002 and 06.09.2007, passed by the Collector-cum-District Development and Panchayat Officer, Amritsar and the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat (exercising the powers of Commissioner), Punjab, Chandigarh, directing the petitioners ejectment are affirmed, however with liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application under Section 11 of the Act, seeking adjudication of the question whether the land vests or does not vest in the Gram Panchayat.

¶20

In case, such an application is filed within one month from the receipt of a certified copy of this order, the operation of the impugned orders shall remain stayed during this period of one month. While considering the petitioners application under Section 11 of the Act, the Collector shall disregard any observation made in the impugned orders except in so far as they are relevant for deciding the controversy.

¶21

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶22

27.07.2010 shamsher

¶23

[RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE

Harjit Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjit Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab

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

Reshma & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Resurgence India and Others Vs State of Punjab & Others

Krishan Lal Vs Ranbir Singh

Man Singh Vs State of Haryana

Shoukin Ali Vs State of Haryana

Parveen @ Sonu Vs State of Haryana