Dismissed

Hawa Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Feb 2011CWP/697/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders confirming land grant under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961. Court refused interference as findings showed land belonged to High School and common use. Applicant also alleged drug dealing on site.

What did the court decide?

Civil Writ Petition dismissed as no ground for interference in writ jurisdiction was made out due to consistency of factual findings regarding land possession.

Hawa Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶2

CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.697 of 2008

¶4

DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 2, 2011

¶5

HAWA SINGH

¶6

....... PETITIONER(S)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

¶9

.... RESPONDENT(S)

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶11

PRESENT: Mr. JS Dahiya, Advocate, for Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate, the petitioner(s). Mr. SS Nara, Sr.DAG, Haryana. Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

¶12

AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

¶13

1 This Civil Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 6.1.2006 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sonepat (respondent No.4), order dated 18.5.2006 (Annexure P-3), passed by Collector, Sonepat (respondent No.3) and order dated 25.4.2007 (Annexure P-4), passed by Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak (respondent No.2).

¶14

2 On a perusal of the impugned orders, it transpires that a consistent finding of fact has been recorded, after taking evidence, to the effect that the land at issue was in the possession of High School set up in

¶15

Civil Writ Petition No.697 of 2008

¶16

¶17

the village and, therefore, was being used for common purposes. In the Jamabandi for the year 2001-02, the land has been shown as belonging to Gram Panchayat, Nahri. A finding has further been recorded that the petitioner had constructed a house and a tea shop by way of taking illegal possession of the land of Makbuza High School. Accordingly, the application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 has been allowed and the orders confirmed up to the Commissioner.

¶18

3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been in possession of land since a long time and, therefore, the possession should be regularized. 4 I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

5 Once a finding of fact has been returned to the effect that the land was being used for common purposes with High School, personal interest of a person has to give way.

¶20

6 Rather, a very interesting aspect has been brought out by the learned counsel for respondent No.5, i.e. Gram Panchayat, to the effect that in the tea stall set up by the petitioner on the land, the petitioner and his wife indulged in selling Charas. In view of such offending act, FIR No.131 dated 1.7.2007 under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, has been registered at Police Station, Kundli, District Sonepat. Copy of the FIR has been placed on record as Annexure R-5/1. No replication has been filed so as to controvert the facts and, therefore, the facts as they emanate have to be accepted.

¶21

Civil Writ Petition No.697 of 2008

¶22

¶23

7 In view of the findings recorded Re: facts, no ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. The findings of fact returned, while assigning reasons based on relevant material, are not required to be interfered with unless they are perverse. No illegality or perversity in the impugned orders can be traced.

¶24

8 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶25

February 2, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE

¶26

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶27

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Hawa Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hawa Singh v. State of Haryana and 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

Manohar Singh Vs Commissioner, Jalandhar Division and Ors.

Ranjit Singh Vs Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandary & Ors.

Satwinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Bachittar Singh Vs Financial Commi. (a) Pb, & Ors.

Dilbag Vs Financial Commissioner, Hry & Ors.

Kamaljit Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.