Disposed

Hardial Singh and Ors. v. Director Rural Devlp and Panchayats, Pb and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Dec 2012CWP/10664/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Gram Sabha member, challenged failure to remove encroachment on Panchayat land by respondents including Panches. State assured action. Court held no further directions needed pending such action.

What did the court decide?

No further directions granted; case disposed following State's assurance of action against encroachments.

Hardial Singh and Ors. Vs Director Rural… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 10664 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.12.2012

Hardial Singh

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

Director Rural Development and Panchayats & ors. ....Respondents

¶7

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶8

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶9

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶10

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

Present: Mr. D.S. Gurna, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab for the State.

¶13

Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for Mr. R.K. Garg, Advocate for respondent No. 4.

¶14

Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate for respondents No. 5 and 6.

¶15

¶16

RANJIT SINGH, J.

¶17

C.M. No. 18018 of 2012

¶18

Demarcation report taken on record.

¶19

Application disposed of.

¶20

Civil Writ Petition No. 10664 of 2011

¶21

The petitioners are members of Gram Sabha. They have

¶22

made number of complaints against respondents No. 1 to 3. The petitioner also pleads for removal of encroachment made by

¶23

Civil Writ Petition No. 10664 of 2011 (O&M)

¶24

-2-

¶25

respondents No. 5 and 6, who are Panches and have allegedly encroached khasra No. 145, which is gairmumkin johar/tobha. The petitioner would plead that Section 30 of Punjab Panchayati Raj castes a duty on the panchayat to remove encroachment which he had failed to do. The petitioner had filed suit for permanent injunction against respondents No. 5 and 6 to prevent them from further encroaching the land. The temporary injunction was granted against which the appeal was also dismissed. It is, in this background, stated that the respondents are not taking any action to remove the encroachment and also against the elected panches etc.

¶26

Pursuant to the notice issued and the direction passed by this Court, Deputy Commissioner has submitted demarcation report indicating that Pritam Sngh son of Kartar Singh was in illegal land of 9 biswas land in khasra No. 141 and has raised construction of Pucca house, Khurli and Rori Gohara. Gian Singh was also found to be in illegal possession of 6 biswas in khasra No. 145 by raising construction of house. Counsel appearing for the respondents had sought adjournment on 28.08.2012 as the demarcation report has not been supplied to him. The report has now been supplied. The respondents even had moved an application to place on record the report whereby large number of people are alleged to have encroached the panchayat land, which includes the petitioners as well.

¶27

The State counsel is under instruction to state that the action is being taken to get the encroachment removed. Further

¶28

Civil Writ Petition No. 10664 of 2011 (O&M)

¶29

-3-

¶30

action against the elected representatives would also follow in accordance with law. Since State is already in the process of taking action for ensuring that the encroachments are removed and has also stated before the Court that the action would follow against the elected representatives in accordance with law, no further directions are called for in the writ petition.

¶31

The same is disposed of with above observations.

¶32

December 19, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE

Hardial Singh and Ors. v. Director Rural Devlp and Panchayats, Pb and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardial Singh and Ors. v. Director Rural Devlp and Panchayats, Pb 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

Union of India and Ors. Vs Balwinder Singh

S.K.Aggarwal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Prabhakaran Vs Union of India, etc.

Maj. Ks Pama Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gurjinder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Puran Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.