Partly allowed

Dhup Singh v. Assistant Collector 1ST Grade and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2013CR/3090/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition arose from an inordinate six-year delay by the Assistant Collector in disposing of an execution application regarding land encroachment. The Court directed the Assistant Collector to decide the application within one month and ordered departmental inquiry regarding the delay.

What did the court decide?

Directing Assistant Collector to dispose of the execution application within one month and referring the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for departmental inquiry.

Dhup Singh Vs Assistant Collector 1ST Grade and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

Civil Revision No.3090 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.05.2013.

Dhoop Singh

….Petitioner

Versus

Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Mahendergarh and others

¶7

…..Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH

¶9

Present: Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

NAWAB SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶11

Parbhati-father of Dhoop Singh-petitioner and Nand Kishore filed application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act against Nihal Singh and others before Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Mahendergarh on June 27, 2000. The said application was decided on January 22, 2003. The operative part of the said order is reproduced as under: -

¶12

“After hearing the arguments for the learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the file and L.C. Report, I have reached at the conclusion that as per the LC report dated 4.4.2001, Nihal Singh and Vidyanand sons of Lalman, Caste Gujar, r/o Kharkharabass (Dhanonda) have illegally encroached upon 77 sq. yards area of khasra No.327 and have raised pacca houses, by including the said land in their khasra No.325. So the LC report dated 4.4.2001 is confirmed and it is ordered that the illegal possession of the respondents may be removed immediately.”

¶13

Against the said order of Assistant Collector, respondents filed appeal before the Collector and revision before the Commissioner but could not succeed. Thereafter, they challenged the orders passed by the authorities before this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No.13742 of 2004 titled `Nihal Singh Vs. Deputy Commissionercum-Collector, District Mahendergarh and others'. The same was

¶14

-2-

¶15

dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated April, 18, 2006 (Annexure P2). For facilitation, the order is reproduced as under: -

¶16

“The petitioner is alleged to have encroached upon a public path in the village. A Local Commissioner was appointed by the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade Mahendergarh and on the basis of the report of the Local Commissioner, the Assistant Collector held that the petitioner has encroached upon 6 karams of the path. The petitioner was directed to remove the illegal encroachment. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Collector and revision filed before the Commissioner were also dismissed.

¶17

After going through the impugned orders, we find no infirmity in the same as all the three quasi judicial authorities have held that there has been illegal encroachment by the petitioner. No ground to interfere in the finding of fact arrived at by the authorities below: Petition is dismissed.”

¶18

The petitioner filed execution application before Assistant Collector on August 23, 2007. Interim orders passed by the Assistant Collector in the execution application annexed with the petition show that the execution application was adjourned for 104 times and is still pending. By filing the present petition, petitioner seeks direction to Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Mahendergarh to decide the application, at the earliest.

¶19

The aforesaid facts show that Assistant Collector should have decided this application immediately but he took about 6 years in deciding the same.

¶20

In view of this, Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Mahendergarh is directed to dispose of the application within one month from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to this Court. 6. A copy of this order be also sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Mahendergarh to look into the matter himself and get the explanation of Assistant Collector as to why the application was not disposed of within 6 years inspite of the fact that the matter attained

¶21

-3-

¶22

finality even before this Court and the Assistant Collector/Collectors be proceeded against further departmentally if, such explanation is not found to be satisfactory.

¶23

(NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE

¶24

15.05.2013 Ishwar

Dhup Singh v. Assistant Collector 1ST Grade and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhup Singh v. Assistant Collector 1ST Grade 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

Jarnail Singh Vs Jaspal Singh @ Jassa

Kuldeep Singh Kahlon Vs Bhupinder Singh and Ors.

Amar Nath and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Vijender Anjan Vs State of Punjab

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Haryana

Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab