Dismissed

Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Haryana etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Nov 2011LPA/1920/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Letters Patent Appeal, a two-judge bench dismissed the appeal against a Single Judge's order refusing directions for action against a Sarpanch alleged to have family members in unauthorized possession of Panchayat land. The court held that the finding of the enquiry report cleared the Sarpanch personally and directed the appellant to approach the Collector under Section 7 of the Punjab Villa

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the appellant was directed to avail the remedy of Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

Sukhwinder Singh Vs State of Haryana etc. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

LPA 1920 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

LPA No. 1920 of 2011 Date of decision 16.11.2011

Sukhwinder Singh

. Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶9

.. Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

¶11

Present: Mr. Nav Kiran Singh, Advocate for the appellant

¶12

To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶13

Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?

¶14

M.M.KUMAR,J.

¶15

The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 16.8.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge repelling the contention for issuance of directions to the State of Haryana and Director of Panchayat to take action against Iqbal Singh, Sarpanch- respondent no.4. The basis of the aforesaid submission was alleged indictment of Mr. Iqbal Singh in an enquiry report dated 15.1.2010 submitted by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Badaguda to the Deputy Commissioner on 25.3.2010 (P.5). In the enquiry report dated 15.11.2010 (P.5/1) it has been found that his family members might be in unauthorised possession. There is some dispute concerning demarcation highlighted in that report. The argument that Iqbal Singh was residing with all other family members like brother and father did not find favour with the learned Single Judge because if father or brother have encroached upon the land of the Gram Panchayat then Iqbal Singh, respondent no. 4 could not be held responsible. In the enquiry report dated 15.11.2010, Iqbal Singh was not found in unauthorised occupation whereas other persons were found in

¶16

¶17

LPA 1920 of 2011

¶18

unauthorised occupation of the Panchayat land. The learned Single relegated the petitioner to the alternative remedy of filing a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable to Haryana) (for brevity 'the Act') for removal of encroachment and eviction of the encroacher from the Panchayat land as the authorities may be in a position to decide after recording evidence regarding the real encroacher of land. Under Section 7 of the Act, the Collector has been clothed with the power to put panchayat in possession of the Shamlat Deh land if it is proved before him that the land belongs to Panchayat.

¶19

Having heard the learned counsel and perusing the record we are of the considered view that no interference in the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge would be warranted. The High Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot obstruct the findings of fact which have been duly recorded in the report dated 15.10.2011 (P5/1). In the aforesaid report there are categorical findings showing that Iqbal Singh, respondent no. 4 is not in unauthorised possession. If any of his family members is in unauthorised possession then the fault cannot be found with him. Moreover, the appellant has political animosity with Iqbal Singh, Sarpanch as he lost the election against him. Accordingly, we find that the appellant may avail the remedy of Section 7 of the Act as has been directed by the learned Single Judge, if so advised. There is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.

¶20

(M.M.Kumar) Judge

¶21

(Rajiv Narain Raina) Judge okg

¶22

16.11.2011 okg

Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Haryana etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Haryana etc.

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

Harpal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jahrudeen & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

HUDA and Anr. Vs Layak Ram

Jamiat Singh Palial Vs State of Punjab and Others

Birampal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

HUDA and Anr. Vs M/S Swadeshi Loomtex Pvt. Ltd.