Single judge dismissed this writ petition seeking an order for border fencing within 150 meters. The Court held it cannot interfere with decisions on national security for border protection by executing agencies.
Prayer for writ of mandamus directing fencing within 150 meters from Line of Control dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.2962 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision : 17.5.2012
Jagjeet Singh and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present : None for the petitioners.
Mr.P.S.Thiara, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. P.C.Goyal, Advocate for respondents No.5 and 6.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to undertake the fencing of the border within 150 meters from the Line of Control.
The petitioners, who claim to be residents of the border area, have alleged that the fencing of the border has been commenced beyond 150 meters which has affected the land of the petitioners.
The petition has been opposed by the respondents, who have contended that it is a decision taken at the level of Ministry of Home Affairs and in consultation with the officials of the Border Security Force and that respondents No.5 and 6 are merely executing agencies who have given effect to such decision. The said authorities
C.W.P.No.2962 of 2010 (O&M) -2-
have not been impleaded as party respondents and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in the absence of any challenge to the decision of the authorities.
On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the objection raised by the respondents is justifiable and merits acceptance. The petitioners, who are residents of the area and have said to be the owners of some land in the vicinity of the border, cannot question the decision which affects national security. The work of fencing which has been undertaken is obviously aimed at preventing infiltration from across the border and, therefore, it is very well within the domain of the decision making authorities involved in protecting the borders of the country to evaluate the ground situation and decide the manner in which fencing is to be done. If in the process of such an exercise some private land of the landholders is consumed, then at best they can seek compensation in this regard, but under no circumstances can they dictate to the authorities that the fencing be undertaken in a particular manner and in a particular area.
No ground to interfere.
Dismissed.
However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise the issue of compensation with the respondents who shall consider the same in accordance with law in the eventuality of some land of the petitioners being consumed.
17.5.2012 (MAHESH GROVER)
JUDGE
dss
2 issues framed by the court
Whether residents of a border area can challenge the government decision to fence beyond 150 meters from the Line of Control.
Whether private land consumed in the national security interest of border fencing entitles owners to a writ rather than compensation.
Jagjeet Singh and others
State of Punjab and others
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
