The High Court dismissed contempt proceedings filing an execution application under the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961, as the encroachment was allegedly removed.
Rule discharged; liberty to move fresh application before revenue court for execution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
COCP No. 1181 of 2009 . [O&M] Date of Decision: 24th January, 2012 .
Jhagru Singh
Petitioner through Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate
Versus
Shri J.S.Sangwan & Ors. Respondents through Mr. R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL]
The petitioner filed CWP No. 18163 of 2002 challenging the orders passed by the Revenue Courts, dismissing his application for execution of the ejectment order dated 20.02.2001passed against the private respondents.
The above-stated writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.02.2005 with a direction to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade to execute the ejectment order dated 20.02.2001 forthwith as it had attained finality. The private respondents preferred SLP [C} No. 14796 of 2005 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 5.12.2008.
Alleging that the eviction order dated 20.02.2001 has still not been executed and the directions issued by this Court have not been complied with, that the petitioner has initiated these contempt proceedings.
The Assistant Collector 1st Grade – respondent No. 1 has filed the reply/affidavit and so has been done by the other respondents also, stating on oath, with the support of the site plan, that the encroachment made by the private respondents in the public street shown in the site plan [Annexure R-2] has been removed and the passage/public street has been restored to its original position.
The petitioner, however, has contended the afore-stated claim by way of rejoinder.
COCP No. 1181 of 2009. ::-2-::
The tendency to encroach upon the public places, streets or open spaces etc. is a growing menace. The authorities including Gram Panchayat [in Rural Areas] or Municipalities [in Urban Areas] are under legal obligation to evolve an effective mechanism to ensure that the encroachments already made are removed and future encroachments are stalled. Since the petitioner in the instant case has made allegations against the husband of the Sarpanch as well as the Revenue Authorities which can not be effectively adjudicated in these summary proceedings coupled with the fact that the Assistant Collector has stated on oath that the encroachment in the public street has since been removed, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh application, if so required, before the revenue court under the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana, for execution of the eviction order to the extent it is yet to be executed. The execution application, if filed by the petitioner shall be decided by the Revenue Court after hearing the parties concerned and in accordance with law.
However, if the petitioner raises an objection against the Presiding Officer of the Revenue Court, the Collector, Gurgaon shall ensure that the execution application is entrusted to another Revenue Court/ Officer of competent jurisdiction, so that possibility of apprehended bias is ruled out.
The District Administration as well as the Gram Panchayat shall ensure in future that no encroachment takes place henceforth.
Rule discharged.
Disposed of. Dasti .
January 24, 2012. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether contempt proceedings were maintainable given that allegations against revenue authorities could not be adjudicated in summary proceedings.
Whether the encroachment on the public street had been removed as per the Assistant Collector's affidavit.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jhagru Singh
Shri J.S.Sangwan
Assistant Collector 1st Grade
Gram Panchayat
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
