Disposed

Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Feb 2013CWP/21031/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to decide disputed facts regarding an alleged encroachment on a Gair Mumkin Johar (pond). It directed the Deputy Commissioner to demarcate the pond using revenue documents and remove any identified encroachment within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directing Deputy Commissioner to demarcate the pond and remove encroachment if found within three months.

Mukhtiar Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

C.W.P.No. 21031 of 2012 -1-

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶3

C.W.P.No. 21031 of 2012 Date of Decision: February 06, 2013

Mukhtiar Singh

---Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab and others

¶8

---Respondents

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal

¶10

Present: Mr. NPS Mann, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 Mr.Hardip Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.6 Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 7

¶11

¶12

RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL)

¶13

The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to take necessary steps to restrain respondent No. 7 from forcibly and illegally occupying the Gair Mumkin Johar (pond) and to initiate proceedings against respondent No. 7 for illegal occupation of part of a pond.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that one Amar Singh @ Muni Lal was the owner of a plot adjoining the Gair Mumkin Johar, which was received by him pursuant to a family partition dated 12.4.1996. Joginder Singh-respondent No. 7 purchased this plot and constructed a

¶15

C.W.P.No. 21031 of 2012 -2-

¶16

house. Joginder Singh has extended the boundary of his plot towards the eastern side by filling the pond and including a part of the pond within the boundary of his house. The Gram Panchayat constructed a wall around this pond in the year 2011 but has not constructed any wall in front of land occupied by respondent No. 7. As respondent No. 7 has encroached upon part of the Gair Mumkin Johar and criminal proceedings, under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C., have already been initiated against him, the Gram Panchayat may be directed to demarcate the Gair Mumkin Johar and in case respondent No. 7 is found in illegal occupation of any part of the pond, ensure that encroachment by Joginder Singh-respondent No. 7 is removed and the pond is restored to its original nature and state.

¶17

The official respondents have filed a reply, through Paramjit Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Rajpura, stating therein that all necessary legal steps have been taken to prevent respondent No. 7 from encroaching upon the land of the pond by directing the Sarpanch and the Panchayat Secretary to take necessary steps in the matter.

¶18

Joginder Singh son of Prem Singh, respondent No. 7, has filed a reply that he purchased the land, in dispute, from Amar Singh @ Muni Lal by way of an agreement to sell, dated 1.3.1999, for a consideration of `95,000/-, and is not in possession of any part of the Gair Mumkin Johar beyond the land subject matter of the agreement to sell, dated 1.3.1999. Counsel for respondent No. 7 refers to a site plan Annexure R-7/5 in support of his plea that no part of the Gaim Mumkin Johar, assigned Khasra No. 713, is in possession of respondent No. 7.

¶19

We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings as

¶20

C.W.P.No. 21031 of 2012 -3-

¶21

well as various documents filed by parties. As adjudication of the pleas raised by parties would involve recording an opinion on disputed question of fact, namely, the extent of the land in possession of respondent No. 7, the area of the pond, demarcation of the pond and other disputed questions of fact, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, to ensure that land of the Gair Mumkin Johar, is demarcated by reference to the field book, the musavi and any other relevant revenue document. If any person is found in possession of any part of the Gair Mumkin Johar, appropriate steps be taken in accordance with law, to ensure that the encroachment is removed and the Gair Mumkin Johar is restored to its original nature/state. The needful shall be done within three months from receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶22

(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE

¶23

( REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE

¶24

February 06, 2013 PARAMJIT

Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Sarup and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sadhu Singh etc. Vs Director Rural Development & Panchayat Department & Ors.

Prem Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Hardev Singh & Ors. Vs Addl. Director & Anr.

Bachan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jain Muni Shri Bimal Chand High School Vs Gram Panchayat, Kup Kalan