Dismissed

Harmesh Lal and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 May 2012CWP/22709/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A constitutional writ petition challenged ejectment orders under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act where a Section 11 petition was pending. The court affirmed ejectment but directed suspension of execution during the pending Section 11 adjudication. Writ dismissed with specific directions.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed writ petition; impugned orders of ejectment affirmed but kept in abeyance until decision on pending Section 11 petition.

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

¶1

CWP No.22709 of 2010

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.22709 of 2010 Date of Decision:22.05.2012

¶5

Harmesh Lal and another

¶6

..... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

..... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶11

Present : Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate, for Mr.Amit Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr.N.D.S.Mann, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶13

Mr.O.P.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶14

¶15

RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL)

¶16

The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders dated 06.10.2010 and 08.12.2010, passed by the DDPO-cum-Collector, Ludhiana, and the Director Rural Development and Panchayats, SAS Nagar, Mohali, respectively.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioners contends that as a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is admittedly pending adjudication, the learned Collector had no jurisdiction to proceed with the petition under Section 7 of the Act, in view of the first proviso to Section 7 of the Act.

¶18

Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, respondent No.3, admits

¶19

CWP No.22709 of 2010

¶20

-2-

¶21

that a petition under Section 11 of the Act is pending but states that the petitioners were lessees of the Gram Panchayat and as no question of title arises, the writ petition should be dismissed and the order of ejectment should be affirmed.

¶22

We have heard counsel for the parties. Admittedly, a petition under Section 11 of the Act is pending. The first proviso to Section 7 of the Act, clearly provides that in case a petition is filed under Section 11 of the Act, the Collector shall keep the petition under Section 7 of the Act, in abeyance, till decision of the petition under Section 11 of the Act. We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition by affirming the orders of ejectment but direct that they shall be kept in abeyance during pendency of the petition under Section 7 of the Act. It is further ordered that in case the petition under Section 11 of the Act, is decided in favour of the petitioners, the impugned orders shall be rendered null and void but in case it is decided in favour of the Gram Panchayat, orders passed under Section 7 of the Act, shall be carried out into execution.

¶23

The Collector is directed to decide the petition filed under Section 11 of the Act, within three months , from receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶24

[ RAJIVE BHALLA ] JUDGE

¶25

22.05.2012 [ RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ] shamsher JUDGE

Harmesh Lal and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harmesh Lal and Anr. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joginder Singh & Ors. Vs Director Rural & Development Panchayats & Ors.

Shanti Devi & Ors. Vs Harayana State & Ors.

Nirmla Devi Vs State of Punjab and Another

Parveen Sharma Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

M/S H.P.L. Additives Limited Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sukhbir Singh Vs National Highway Authority and Ors.