Dismissed

Shiv Avtar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC30 Nov 2015CWP/1816/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an eviction order under the Haryana Public Premises Act for encroaching on village phirni land. The court cited limitations on writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition, directing removal of encroachment within six months.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to remove the alleged encroachment within six months under the supervision of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer.

Shiv Avtar Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.1816 of 2015 Date of Decision: November 30, 2015

Shiv Avtar

....Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA.

¶9

¶10

Present: Mr.Anil Rathee, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Kirti Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr.Ram Pal Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.6.

¶11

-.-

¶12

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

¶16

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶17

The controversy in the instant case pertains to the alleged encroachment made by the petitioner in a public street. The eviction order under Sections 4, 5 & 7 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 has been passed with a finding that as per the demarcation report the petitioner was found to have encroached upon phirni of the village.

¶18

When this writ petition came up for preliminary hearing on 04.02.2015, the petitioner questioned the previous demarcation report and sought a fresh demarcation report at his expenses.

¶19

The official-respondents have filed their writtenstatement alongwith latest demarcation report conducted on

¶20

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.12.14 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

CWP No.1816 of 2015

¶22

[2]

¶23

26.06.2015 and as per the said report also, the petitioner has been found to have encroached upon 47 square yards area of the village phirni.

¶24

In this view of the matter and owing to the wellknown limitations to be observed while exercising writjurisdiction in such like matters, we are satisfied that no interference in the impugned order to the extent it holds the petitioner in unauthorized occupation of 47 square yards of phirni land, is called for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is directed that if the petitioner has not removed the encroachment so far he may do so within six months under the supervision of Block Development and Panchayat Officer who shall then submit a compliance report to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat.

¶25

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE

¶26

November 30, 2015 [HARI PAL VERMA] mohinder JUDGE

¶27

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.12.14 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Shiv Avtar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Avtar 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

Gurmeet Kaur Vs Niranjan Singh

Baljit Singh Vs Niranjan Singh

Swaran Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Paramjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Subhash Chand & Ors. Vs Commissioner Rohtak Divn & Ors.

Bachna Ram Vs State of Haryana & Ors.