Allowed

Surto and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2012CWP/21844/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of orders leading to house demolition. The Court held that serious disputed questions of fact regarding the property's nature and title preclude writ jurisdiction. The petition was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to pursue civil remedies.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to approach civil court for relief.

Surto and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C.W.P.No.21844 of 2010(O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P.No.21844 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision : 07.05.2012

¶4

Smt. Surto and others

¶5

....Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

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

¶11

Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab

¶12

Mr. C.L.Premy, Advocate for respondents no. 7 to 13

¶13

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶14

The petitioners have prayed for quashing of order dated 26.5.2010 (Annexure P-1) and also order dated 27.5.2010 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 10.6.2010 (Annexure P-4) pursuant to which the house of the petitioners has been demolished.

¶15

Annexure P-1 is rather an application made by one Ravinder Jit Singh who described the disputed area as a street in the Abadi Deh and in the site plan attached to the complaint was depicted as ABCD. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Kharar was asked to report after spot inspection and to get the passage cleared. The subsequent order (Annexure P-3) is a request made by Block Development and Panchayat Officer to the Sub Divisional Magistrate requesting to provide police help to clear the passage. Annexure P-4 is a similar request to the Senior

¶16

C.W.P.No.21844 of 2010(O&M) 2

¶17

Superintendent of Police made by the District Magistrate, SAS, Nagar. It has been alleged by the petitioners that subsequent to this exercise their house has been demolished.

¶18

The respondents have filed their reply and have seriously contested the plea of the petitioners that their house has been demolished. Rather reference has been made to site plan appended to the reply filed by respondents no. 7 to 13 showing that it is a street which is in existence since long and it is this street which has been got cleared by the efforts of the concerned authorities. On record is also some material which shows that the parties have been litigating in Civil Courts. One of the judgments rendered by the Civil Court is of 21.12.1985 indicating a dispute regarding a street.

¶19

In view of the above, when the parties are at logger heads where the petitioners assert that the property in question which has been demolished is their house which fact is seriously controverted by the respondents to allege that it is a street and also that there is some civil litigation between the parties pertaining to the same property and the nature thereof, I am of the considered opinion that it raises serious disputed questions of fact which cannot be looked into and determined in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶20

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for permission to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to take recourse to the civil proceedings before the Court of competent jurisdiction to establish their claim.

¶21

On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners merits

¶22

C.W.P.No.21844 of 2010(O&M) 3

¶23

acceptance. Consequently, petition is disposed of as having been withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to avail themselves of any other remedy including having recourse to the proceedings before the Civil Court

¶24

available to them under the law.

¶25

May 7, 2012 rekha

¶26

(Mahesh Grover) Judge

Surto and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surto and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amanpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Bharat Ram @ Bharat Lal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Harjinder Singh Dhillon Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate

Manjir Singh Vs Indo Barma Petroleum Corp. and Ors.

Public Service Station Vs UOI

Management Committee, National College, Bhikhi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.