Dismissed

Hazara Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Feb 2012CWP/2300/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected the petitioner's challenge to the Commissioner's stay order in an appeal under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The court held that interim orders do not require reasons and found no patent illegality in the stay.

What did the court decide?

Stay of the stay order passed by the learned Commissioner was dismissed.

Hazara Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.2300 of 2012 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.2300 of 2012

¶4

Date of decision:- 15.02.2012

¶5

Hazara Singh and others

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Punjab and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

¶11

Present: Mr. Rajiv Saini, Advocate, for Mr. Gaurav Singh Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)

¶13

Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the learned Commissioner on 23.12.2011 in an appeal filed against the order passed by the Collector, Hoshiarpur, in proceedings under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').

¶14

The petitioners filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act claiming title over the suit property. The learned Collector, vide order dated 29.07.2011, has declared the petitioners to be owners of the suit land for the reason that the petitioners are in adverse possession of the said land and have become owners under Section 4 (3) of the Act. In appeal against the said order, the learned Commissioner has stayed the operation of the order while issuing notice for 06.01.2012. The petitioners has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court against the said order passed by the Appellate Authority.

¶15

Civil Writ Petition No.2300 of 2012 2

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a judgment of this Court in case of Om Parkash and others Vs. The Joint Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Punjab, Chandigarh and another , 1987 (1) PLR 674, to contend that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to the proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, therefore, the interim order granted in an application under Section 151 of the Code is not maintainable. Reliance is also placed on a Single Bench Judgment of this Court in case of Hazara Singh and others Vs. Joint Director, Panchayat (exercising the powers of Commissioner), Punjab and others, 2005 (2) L.A.R. 527, to contend that quasi judicial authorities are required to give reasons in support of their conclusions. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that since the Appellate Authority has not recorded its reasons to stay the order passed by the Collector, the order is not sustainable.

¶17

There is no dispute to the proposition that Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC') is not applicable to the proceedings under the Act, but the principles of CPC, which are in consonance with the justice, equity and good conscience, can very well be extended by the Authorities under the Act. Since an appeal was filed by the Panchayat against the order passed by the Collector, the Appellate Authority has the power to stay the order impugned in the appeal.

¶18

The judgment in Hazara Singh's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The occupants cannot claim title over the Panchayat property under Section 11 of the Act being in adverse possession. We do not find that any reason is required to be given while granting the stay of the order. We find that the order passed by the Collector is perverse.

¶19

Civil Writ Petition No.2300 of 2012 3

¶20

Such order has rightly been stayed by the learned Appellate Authority. The order impugned in an interim order pending final decision of appeal. There is no requirement of the principals of natural justice that even such interim order is to be speaking order.

¶21

We find that the order passed by the Appellate Authority does not suffer from any patent illegality, which may warrant interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction.

¶22

Dismissed.

¶23

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) February 15, 2012 JUDGE ajp/vimal

Hazara Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hazara Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Lata Vs Housing Board Haryana and Anr.

Sonia etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Muga Devi Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Vimlesh Garg and Ors. Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

M/S Bharat Dyes and Chemical Industry Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Saful and Others Vs Municipal Corporation and Others