Partly allowed

Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 May 2013CRM-M/28625/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A special criminal matter where the petitioner challenged the maintenance of a complaint alleging encroachment on panchayat land. The court held that since civil relief proceedings regarding possession were pending, the penal complaint was stayed.

What did the court decide?

Stay of proceedings in the present complaint until the competent court delivers a decision regarding the possession of panchayat land.

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM-M No.28625 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M No.28625 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision : 4.5.2013

Balbir Singh

..Petitioner.

Vs.

State of Punjab and another

¶10

...Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

¶12

Present: Mr. ADS Sukhija, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Ms. Amarjit Kaur Khurana, Addl.AG Punjab.

¶14

Mr. J.S.Bhandola, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶15

AJAY TEWARI, J.

¶16

Counsel for respondent No.2 states that since the present petition involves question of law, there is no requirement of filing reply.

¶17

In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the complaint under Section 13-A of Punjab Village Common Land Regulation Act, 1961 filed by Gram Panchayat, village Dhianu Majra, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib against the petitioner and his coaccused on the allegations that they have encroached upon Panchayat land.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that not only a civil suit even the proceedings under Section 13(7) of the Punjab Village Common Land Act are pending where the categorical stand of the petitioner is that he is not in possession of any panchayat land and till such time, as the finding is arrived at by the competent Court in this regard,

¶19

CRM-M No.28625 of 2012

¶20

-2-

¶21

recourse to penal proceedings cannot be held.

¶22

Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the petitioner is taking cover of technicalities to perpetuate his usurpation of the Panchayat land. However, learned Addl.AG Punjab has not denied the fact that civil proceedings are still pending. In my opinion, till such time there is a dispute where the petitioner is in possession of Panchayat land and there is no finding in this regard, the present complaint cannot continue.

¶23

Consequently, the petition is partly allowed and it is directed that proceedings in the present complaint shall be stayed till the decision of the competent Court as regard to the possession or otherwise of the petitioner over panchayat land is delivered.

¶24

( Ajay Tewari ) Judge

¶25

4.5.2013 Meenu

Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

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

Pardeep Vs State of Haryana

Pankaj Bhandari Vs State of Haryana

Babu Lal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Payal Mehta Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Vikram Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Rita Dalal Vs State of Haryana & Ors.