Dismissed

Mohinder Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Mar 2012CWP/1567/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought certiorari to set aside eviction orders under the 1961 Act while a title claim was pending. The court found no proof of ownership or possession, dismissing the writ but staying eviction until the pending section 11 proceedings conclude.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; eviction orders affirmed; execution of eviction stayed during pendency of section 11 proceedings.

Mohinder Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No. 1567 of 2012 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No. 1567 of 2012 Date of Decision : 20.3.2012

¶4

Mohinder Singh and another

¶5

..Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

State of Punjab and others

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶10

Present: Mr. S.S.Rangi, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate for respondent no.6.

¶12

RAJIVE BHALLA, J.

¶13

The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari for setting aside orders dated 8.3.2010 (Annexure P-1) and dated 18.5.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by Collector-cum-District Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana and Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab respectively.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioners submits that as a petition under section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1961 Act”) is already pending for adjudication on the question of title, the impugned orders passed under section 7 of the Act, directing eviction of the petitioners are illegal and void. It is further submitted that as the petitioners are in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land in dispute for the last more than 50 years, the petition under section 7 of the Act

¶15

Civil Writ Petition No. 1567 of 2012 2

¶16

should have been rejected summarily.

¶17

Counsel for the Gram Panchayat submits that the petitioners have not produced any evidence to prove their possession for the last 50 years, much less in accordance with the manner prescribed by the Act. The Collector, therefore, rightly ordered eviction of the petitioners and the appellate authority rightly dismissed their appeal. It is, however, admitted that as the petition under section 11 of the 1961 Act is pending adjudication, the Gram Panchayat shall not execute orders of eviction during pendency of the proceedings under section 11 of the 1961 Act.

¶18

We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and find no reason to issue the writ prayed for.

¶19

The petitioners have not been able to prove their ownership or possession, much less by reference to any revenue entry, that would enable this court, to hold that the petitioners are in authorised possession of the land in dispute.

¶20

As a consequence, we dismiss the writ petition and affirm the impugned orders and However, in view of the statement made by counsel for the Gram Panchayat, it is ordered that during pendency of proceedings under section 11 of the Act, dispossession of the petitioners shall remain stayed.

¶21

( NARESH KUMAR SANGHI ) JUDGE

¶22

20.3.2012 VK

Mohinder Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohinder Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

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

Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs Collctor, Y/Ngr & Ors.

Balkar Singh Vs Fc Coop Pb. & Ors.

Bikram Parshad and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Angrej Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Lakhwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Neeraj Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.