Petitioner challenged installation of a communication tower on leased land alleging lack of prior permission. The Court dismissed the writ, holding that disputes over lease terms are private rights unamenable to writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227.
Petition dismissed; petitioner allowed to invoke other legal remedies.
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.
CWP No.3826 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.3826 of 2012 (O&M) Decided on : 14-05-2011
Lakhmir Singh
....Petitioner
VERSUS
Vodafone Essar South Ltd and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:Mr. Jasbir Singh , Advocate for the petitioner
MAHESH GROVER, J
The petitioner has filed the instant petition with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondents no.1 and 2 to remove the communication tower installed in the land comprising in Khawat/Khatauni no. 413/439 Khasra no. 241/13/4 (0-11) 14/2 31/10/96 (3-10) 15/3 (1-6) 18/1 (2-12) 25(0-19), 27(30-15), 39 K 13M, 3/793 in share i.e 3 marlas, kharar, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar now Mohali.
His grievance is that respondents no. 1 and 2 have not taken prior permission from the GMADA before installing such towers which has resulted in a situation where the tower has been installed in violation of the policy but the petitioner has been eventually made to suffer on this count.
On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition is mis-conceived. The petitioner is a lessor and the respondents no. 1 and 2 derive their interest from the lease deed which has been executed inter se between the parties. The parties are, therefore, aggrieved by the terms of the lease and their violations and the
CWP No.3826 of 2012 (O&M) 2
allegations of the petitioner that proper permission has not been taken from the competent authorities also in all possibility seems to be a grievance which stems from the violation of some terms of the lease. Lease deed is not on record. If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted then at best it amounts to a violation of the terms of the lease deed for which an appropriate remedy is available with the petitioner but under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India this Court cannot determine the rights of the parties which flow from a legally executed document determining the rights of the two private individuals.
No ground to interfere.
Hence, dismissed.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to invoke any other
remedy available to him under the law.
May 14, 2012 rekha
(Mahesh Grover) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can determine private rights arising from a lease deed under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution.
Whether the petitioner has a ground to interfere under writ jurisdiction in a dispute over lease terms.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lakhmir Singh
Vodafone Essar South Ltd
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
