Dismissed

Sita Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Aug 2010CWP/9498/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging a Gram Panchayat resolution transferring land for a grain market was dismissed. The court held that the petitioners concealed material facts, specifically pending appeals regarding land ownership, and thus did not deserve relief.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed on account of concealment of material facts by the petitioners.

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

¶1

C.W.P.No.9498 of 2009

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P.No.9498 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 05.08.2010

¶5

Sita Singh and others

¶6

....Petitioner(s)

¶7

vs.

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

....Respondent(s)

¶10

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶12

¶13

Present:Mr.M.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶14

Mr.Surinder Kapoor, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

¶15

Mr.Balbir Singh, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶16

¶17

JASBIR SINGH, J. (Oral)

¶18

This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to the provisions of Section 42-A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short 'the 1948 Act). Further challenge is to a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat on 2.2.2009 deciding to give 73 acres of land to the State of Punjab for setting up of a Grain Market.

¶19

It is case of the petitioners that they are the owners of the land in question and the Gram Panchayat has unauthorizedly decided to transfer it to the State of Punjab. It is further contention of the petitioners that the land is going to be acquired without issuing any notification under Sections

¶20

C.W.P.No.9498 of 2009

¶21

-2-

¶22

4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶23

In reply filed, it has been stated that the petition be dismissed on account of concealment of the material facts. It has further been stated that most of the petitioners filed an application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the 1961 Act) to claim ownership of the land in dispute. The application was dismissed by the Collector on 3.9.2007. They went in appeal which was pending when this writ petition was filed. Those facts were not disclosed in this writ petition. It was further stated that another attempt was made by some of the petitioners by filing second application under Section 11 of the 1961 Act before the Collector on 25.6.2009 which was also dismissed. It has further been averred that the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order passed by the Collector on 3.9.2007 was dismissed by the Commissioner on 22.7.2009.

¶24

After hearing counsel for the parties, we feel that on account of concealment of material facts, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It is not in dispute that the petitioners filed an application under Section 11 of the 1961 Act to claim ownership of the land which is in dispute in this writ petition. After trial, the application was dismissed and it was specifically held that the land is under the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. They went in appeal which too was dismissed on 22.7.2009. The above said material facts were not disclosed when this writ petition was filed. This Court is of the opinion that a petitioner who tries to overreach the Court by misstating the facts, does not deserve any concession. It has also come on record that the Gram Panchayat is shown as owner of this land for the last so many decades. The Gram Panchayat has now decided, by passing a

¶25

C.W.P.No.9498 of 2009

¶26

-3-

¶27

resolution, to transfer that land to the State of Punjab to set up a grain market, which, this Court feels will be conducive for future development in the village. The petitioners are trying to be a stumble block in progress of their village. Otherwise also, as per the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the resolution can be challenged by the petitioners and they can also take an objection to the transfer made under the provisions of Section 10-A of the 1961 Act. So far as the challenge to Section 42-A of the 1948 Act is concerned, we feel that vide the said amendment, only power of the Authorities to partition land which was reserved for common purposes has been curtailed. No such question is involved in this case.

¶28

Dismissed.

¶29

( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE

¶30

August 05, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE

Sita Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sita Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

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

Punjab State Fedrn. of Coop. Sugar Mills Limited Vs Pavitar Kaur and Ors.

Prem Lata etc. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Kartar Kaur & Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Rajinder Yadav & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Shingara Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Malibu Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs Secretary, Hry. Electricity Regulatory Comm.