Dismissed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jan 2014CWP/1844/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court heard a challenge to an Act purportedly depriving the Mahasabha of land without compensation. The State argued the land was voluntarily vested via a resolution. The petitioners withdrew the petition, retaining liberty to challenge the resolution validity in civil court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to take out appropriate civil proceedings to assail the resolution.

Jai Singh and Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.1844 of 2007 (O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 21.01.2014

¶3

Jai Singh Thekedar and others

¶4

…..Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

State of Haryana and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL, CHI EF JUSTI CE HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE ARUN PALLI

¶9

Present: Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners

¶10

Mr. H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with

¶11

Mr. Ajay Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1

¶12

Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4

¶13

SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL, CHI EF JUSTI CE : (Oral)

¶14

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to lay a challenge to the provisions of Section 36 of the Bhagat Phool Singh Mahila Vishwa Vidyalaya, Khanpur Kalan Act, 2006 on the ground that it has deprived the owners being the Mahasabha Gurukul Vidyapeeth, etc. of the land without there being any compensation and, thus, the Act is in the teeth of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

¶15

In the course of hearing, at the first blush, this plea did appeal to us. It is trite to say that no one can be deprived of his property

¶16

Chand Parkash 2014.01.22 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CW P- 1844 - 2007

¶18

- 2 -

¶19

except by due process of law and, thus, there cannot be a methodology of acquiring land without paym ent of compensation in view of the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

¶20

Learned Advocate General, however, requested us to look into the circumstances under which the Act came into being. He took us through the pleadings to state that the Mahasabha/ Society was a congregation of persons who had voluntarily donated land to Mahasabha to set up educational institution for women, viz ., Gurukul. It appears that during a visit of the Chief Minister, Haryana to Gurukul on 15.2.2006, certain persons raised the issue of establishm ent of a women’s university/ educational institution and the Chief Minister expressed his willingness to examine such a proposal if the General Body of the Mahasabha passed a resolution for establishment of women’s university.

¶21

A meeting of the Mahasabha was thereafter held on 26.2.2006 for the purpose of considering the proposal for establishm ent of a women’s university. 5200 mem bers of the Mahasabha are stated to have attended the meeting, but there is a controversy raised qua the meeting by the petitioners before us. It is in the meeting that a resolution is stated to have been passed, inter alia, on the following terms: -

¶22

“ Resolution No.2.

¶23

…… …… …… …… Women’ s University be established according to the aims of Mahasabha and after its establishment, all property of Mahasabha shall vest in University/ Government.”

¶24

Chand Parkash 2014.01.22 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CW P- 1844 - 2007

¶26

- 3 -

¶27

The case of the State Government, thus, is that the aforesaid act was a consequence of the resolution passed by the Mahasabha requesting the Governm ent for taking necessary development works and to assist in the same. The Mahasabha had voluntarily vested the land in the proposed university/ the Government and, thus, there was no question of compensation being awarded in respect of the same or any proceedings being taken under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶28

There appears to be a controversy to the extent whether the land was donated to the institution or the Mahasabha/ Society, but we are not opining on the sam e as no material has been placed before us in the present proceedings.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners, faced with the aforesaid position, contends that the meeting of the Mahasabha held was irregular, illegal and im proper on various grounds. He, however, fairly concedes that in the present proceedings there is no prayer made for declaration of the meeting as illegal and invalid. In fact, there could not have been such a prayer in the present proceedings as there are disputed questions of facts involved including the allegations whether there were allegedly dead persons recorded as present; whether certain mem bers were at all present in the meeting or not, etc. Thus, it can only have been post recording of evidence in the civil proceedings that the Court could have drawn conclusion on the validity of the meeting of the Mahasabha held.

¶30

In our view, it can hardly be doubted that if the resolution of the Mahasabha stands, the challenge laid in the present petition would be misplaced for the reason that it was the voluntary act of the Mahasabha

¶31

Chand Parkash 2014.01.22 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

CW P- 1844 - 2007

¶33

- 4 -

¶34

of putting the land to the University/ the Governm ent for setting up of the university pursuant whereto the Act has come into being. However, on the other hand, if the resolution itself is illegal or improper, then the very edifice or basis for the Act would be questionable.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners, thus, seeks to withdraw the present petition with liberty to take out appropriate civil proceedings to assail the resolution passed by Mahasabha for vesting of the land in the university/ the Government or any other appropriate relief. He, however, reserves the liberty to challenge the provisions of the said Act, as in the present petition, in case he is able to succeed in those proceedings.

¶36

Liberty granted in accordance with law.

¶37

Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶38

( SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL ) CHI EF JUSTI CE

¶39

21.01.2014 ( ARUN PALLI ) parkash* JUDGE

¶40

Chand Parkash 2014.01.22 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai 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

Mohammadi Social Welfare Society (Regd.) Vs Union of India and Ors.

Central Admn. Tribunal Bar Association Chandigarh Vs Union of India and Anr.

Paramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

The Tibba Dana Sher Co-Op. L & C Society Ltd. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Mona Aggarwal Vs Punjab National Bank and Ors.