Partly allowed

Sher Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Nov 2011CWP/10910/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an impugned letter issued by the Assistant Consolidation Officer directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate to exchange possession of dispute land. The Court held the letter was issued without jurisdiction and quashed it without expressing substantive views on the land rights merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned letter (Annexure P3) issued by the Assistant Consolidation Officer directing the SDM to exchange possession is hereby quashed.

Sher Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

C.W.P.No.10910 of 2008 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P.No.10910 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision:-3.11.2011

¶4

Sher Singh (since deceased) through his LRs & Anr. ...Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶8

Present:Mr.L.N.Verma, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr.D.Khanna, Addl.AG Haryana for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.Alok Jain, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

¶10

Mr.Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.7 & 8.

¶11

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J . (Oral)

¶12

The challenge in the instant writ petition, by petitioners Sher Singh son of Puran (since deceased), being represented by his LRs and Nathi Ram son of Ram Dia, claiming themselves to be in possession of the land in dispute, is to the impugned letter, bearing serial No.365 dated 4.6.2008 (Annexure P3), by means of which, the Assistant Consolidation Officer (for brevity “the ACO”) asked the Sub Divisional Magistrate (for short “the SDM”), Karnal to deliver/exchange the possession of the land in litigation to the respective parties with the police help from 11.6.2008 to 16.6.2008.

¶13

The case set up by the petitioners, in brief in so far as relevant, was that since they are in possession since long, so, the ACO has illegally issued the impugned letter (Annexure P3) to SDM to disturb their possession over the disputed land. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, in all, according to the petitioners that the ACO did not have the jurisdiction to request the SDM, Karnal to change the possession of the land in question. Hence, the impugned letter (Annexure P3) was stated to be not only

¶14

C.W.P.No.10910 of 2008 (O&M) -2-

¶15

arbitrary and illegal, but without jurisdiction as well. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition against the respondents, in the manner indicated hereinabove.

¶16

Faced with the situation, the respondents refuted the claim of the petitioners. The official respondents filed their joint written statement, whereas the private respondents filed their separate written statement, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioners. The respondents claimed that since the petitioners have already lost a round of litigation, so, they are not entitled to any relief in the present writ petition. It will not be out of place to mention here that the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal.

¶17

At the very outset, it may be mentioned here that the respondents have filed the very lengthy written statements and voluminous documents, which are not at all nearer and relevant to decide the real controversy between the parties, pertaining to the validity or otherwise, of the impugned letter (Annexure P3), involved in the instant writ petition.

¶18

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present writ petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context.

¶19

Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel for petitioners that as the ACO did not have any jurisdiction to issue letter to SDM to exchange the possession, therefore, the impugned letter is illegal and without jurisdiction, has considerable force. On the contrary, the contention of learned counsel for respondents that since the petitioners have already lost rounds of litigation, so, they are not entitled to any relief in this respect, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

¶20

C.W.P.No.10910 of 2008 (O&M) -3-

¶21

As is evident from the record that, the rights and liabilities of the parties were the subject matter and decided in civil suits, bearing Nos.382 and 383 of 1996 titled as “Ram Kishan and others Vs. Chander Gupta and others”, through the medium of judgment and decree dated 1.6.2000 (Annexure R6/13) by the civil Court and vide order dated 23.8.1999 (Annexure R6/25), rendered in CWP No.11775 of 1999 by this Court.

¶22

Sequelly, the appropriate authorities were claimed to have prepared a scheme for consolidation of holdings of disputed land, as envisaged under the provisions of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). The final scheme as confirmed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was published and the consolidation proceedings were stated to have been completed on 13.6.2007, as contemplated under Section 21 (2) of the Act. Assuming for the sake of argument (though not admitted) that the consolidation proceedings have been completed in the village, as provided under the Act and the claim of ownership of the petitioners was negatived in the indicated civil suits, as urged on behalf of the respondents, even then, the ACO did not have the power/jurisdiction to write the impugned letter (Annexure P3) to SDM to deliver the possession of land in question, in a very casual manner in this relevant connection as discussed here-in-above.

¶23

What cannot possibly be disputed here is that an established procedure has been prescribed to implement the orders under the Act and to execute the civil court decrees under the CPC. The appropriate authorities are required to follow the due/established procedure to implement the orders or to execute the decrees in accordance with law and not otherwise. At the same time, no provision of law has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, legally authorizing the ACO, to issue such impugned letter in the relevant behalf. To me, as the ACO did not have the power/jurisdiction to request the SDM to deliver the possession of the land in litigation in such a casual manner,

¶24

C.W.P.No.10910 of 2008 (O&M) -4-

¶25

therefore, the impugned letter (Annexure P3) cannot legally be maintained in this relevant direction.

¶26

No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties.

¶27

In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of subsequent hearing of any proceedings, the instant writ petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned letter (Annexure P3) is hereby quashed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶28

Needless to mention, that nothing observed here-in-above would reflect on the merits of the case, in any kind of civil suit or in any other relatable proceedings, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for the limited purpose of deciding the validity or otherwise of impugned letter (Annexure P3).

¶29

( Mehinder Singh Sullar ) 3.11.2011 Judge AS

¶30

Whether to be referred to reporter ?Yes/No

Sher Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sher Singh and Anr. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Director Food Supplies Pb Chd. etc. Vs Gurdev Singh and Anr.

Wazir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Amrik Singh Vs Superintending Canal Officer and Ors.

Piara Singh and Ors. Vs K.S. Bhoria and Ors.

Haryana St.Minor Irrig.& T/Well Corpn. Ltd. Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court Cum Industrial Tribunal Hissar & Anr.

Parkasho Devi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.