Allowed

Janak Singh v. Commissioner Ambala Division Ambala and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Feb 2013CWP/23362/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the Commissioner's order forwarding a representation to Assistant Director Consolidation contrary to a prior High Court direction was allowed. The appellant order is quashed as per issued and the petitioner is directed to decide the representation within three months.

What did the court decide?

CM allowed; Writ petition allowed; Impugned order set aside as far as forwarding the representation is concerned; Direction to respondent to decide representation within three months.

Janak Singh Vs Commissioner… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.23362 of 2012 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.23362 of 2012 Date of Decision: 15.2.2013

Janak Singh

..Petitioner

versus

Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and others

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

Mr. D.Khanna, Addl.A.G., Haryana for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶12

Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶13

RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

CM No.2560 of 2013

¶15

CM is allowed.

¶16

Written statement filed on behalf of respondent no.3 is

¶17

taken on record.

¶18

CWP No.23362 of 2012

¶19

The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 11.9.2012 passed by Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Director, Consolidation, Haryana (now Commissioner, Ambala Division,

¶21

Civil Writ Petition No.23362 of 2012 2

¶22

Ambala), was directed, vide order dated 23.12.2009 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.20273 of 2009, to decide the representation filed by Nain Singh and others, within six months. The Director, Consolidation, has, however, directed the Assistant Director, Consolidation to decide the representation. It is argued that in view of the directions, issued by this Court, the representation was to be considered and decided by the Commissioner, himself. The Commissioner, therefore, had no jurisdiction to forward the representation to the Assistant Director, Consolidation, for deciding it, along with the quasi judicial lis pending inter parties.

¶23

Counsel for respondent no.3 submits that it is true that a direction was issued to the Commissioner, to decide the representation, but his order directing the Assistant Director Consolidation, to decide the representation, cannot be said to be erroneous. The representation, in essence, involves examination of the revenue record, consideration of serious allegations of fraud etc. and therefore, has been rightly forwarded to the Assistant Director, Consolidation.

¶24

We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

¶25

Nain Singh and others, filed Civil writ Petition No.20273 of 2009, which was decided on 23.12.2009 in the following terms:

¶26

“ It is stated that 90 Kanals standard area has been deducted from the joint ownership of the petitioner in Patti Lohri by Hem Raj Sharma, along with other respondents.

¶27

The only relief claimed in the petition is for a direction

¶28

Civil Writ Petition No.23362 of 2012 3

¶29

to respondent No.1 to decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P4) which is in the form of affidavit.

¶30

Notice of motion to respondent No.1 only.

¶31

Mr. R.K.S.Brar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent State.

¶32

In view of the above circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to take decision on the representation of the petitioner within a period of six months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the said respondent. Before taking decision respondent No.1 shall grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other interested persons who may be effected by his order.”

¶33

The order contains a specific direction issued to respondent no.2, i.e., Director, Consolidation, Haryana (now the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala), to decide the representation filed by Nain Singh and others, within six months. The Commissioner, therefore, could not, while remanding an appeal filed by Nain Singh etc.; forward the representation, to the Assistant Director, Consolidation. The Commissioner, apparently, did not realise that the representation was an administrative complaint and, therefore, could not be decided along with the quasi judicial petition which he has remanded to the Assistant Director Consolidation.

¶34

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed, order dated 11.9.2012, is set aside insofar as the representation has been forwarded to the Assistant Director, Consolidation. The

¶35

Civil Writ Petition No.23362 of 2012 4

¶36

Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, shall, however, decide the representation, within three months. Nain Singh and others may, however, raise pleas, raised in the representation, in the appeal, pending before the Assistant Director, Consolidation, or by resort to a fresh petition, in accordance with provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, if permissible in law.

¶37

( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE

¶38

15.2.2013 ( REKHA MITTAL) VK JUDGE

Janak Singh v. Commissioner Ambala Division Ambala and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janak Singh v. Commissioner Ambala Division Ambala and 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

Satbir Singh Vs Collector Rohtak and Ors.

Bakshish Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gram Panchyat Jant Vs Commissioner Gurgaon Circle etc.

Sujata Sharma Vs Bachan Singh

Hasam Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Jagmohan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.