Allowed

Narain Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Feb 2013CWP/18981/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the disposal of petitioners' houses. The Court restrained the Gram Panchayat from dispossessing petitioners except in accordance with law, granting liberty to initiate proceedings under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

What did the court decide?

Restraint on Gram Panchayat from interferencing in possession except in accordance with law; liberty to initiate proceedings under the 1961 Act.

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

¶1

-1-

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.18981 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No.18981 of 2012 Date of Order: 20.02.2013.

¶5

Narain Singh ...Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and others

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.Khanna, Addl. A.G.,Haryana for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. Yash Dev Kaushik, Advocate for respondent no.3.

¶11

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)

¶12

The petitioners, who are 16 in number, pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners and/or demolish their houses without following the procedure prescribed by the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act').

¶13

Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the land, in dispute, is recorded in possession of “Makbooja Harijan Chamaran”, the Gram Panchayat should be restrained from forcibly dispossessing the petitioners on the premise that the land, in dispute, has been reserved for extension of a school. It is further submitted that, though, the petitioners have filed a representation, dated 06.08.2012, before the Deputy Commissioner, no action has been taken in the matter.

¶14

Counsel for the Gram Panchayat submits that the

¶15

-2-

¶16

Civil Writ Petition No.18981 of 2012

¶17

petitioners are guilty of concealing relevant entries as only part of the land, in dispute, is recorded as “Makbooja Harijan Chamaran”. It is further submitted that revenue entries do not record the existence of any houses. The writ petition may, therefore, be dismissed.

¶18

We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the paper book as well as the revenue entries and are prima-facie satisfied that as petitioners may have raised construction or are in possession, they can not be dispossessed, except in accordance with law, namely, by resort to provisions of the 1961 Act. The attempt by the Gram Panchayat to forcibly demolish the houses or dispossess the petitioners, should have invited the immediate attention of the Deputy Commissioner, who appears to have done nothing in the matter, thereby compelling the petitioners to approach this Court. The question whether the land has been reserved for “Makbooja Harijan Chamaran” or for a “school”, is a matter for the petitioners and the Gram Panchayat, to raise before an appropriate forum.

¶19

In this view of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition by restraining the Gram Panchayat from interfering in the possession of the petitioners except in accordance with law by granting liberty to the Gram Panchayat to initiate appropriate proceedings under the 1961 Act. During pendency of these proceedings, the petitioners shall be not dispossessed from the land, in dispute.

¶20

(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE

¶21

(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE

¶22

February 20, 2013 nt

Narain Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narain Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Gram Panchayat Pangaltu Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Krishan Lal Vs Director Consolidation Haryana and Ors.

Jeet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Kalu @ Nepal Vs State of Haryana

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Haryana etc.

Akhil Bhartiya Baba Mohan Ram Sant Samagam Trust Vs State of Haryana and Ors.