Disposed

Parveen Lata and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Nov 2015CWP/5220/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition concerning alleged illegal construction in a property subject to pending civil partition proceedings. It directed that renovations be made without prejudice to the civil court outcome, denying any preferential claim based on renovation.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to inform action taken; renovation to be without prejudice to pending partition; remedying injunction violations lies elsewhere.

Parveen Lata and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.5220 of 2015 Date of Decision: November 27, 2015

¶3

Parveen Lata and others

¶4

....Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

Present: Mr.Saurabh Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional AG, Punjab. Mr.S.K.Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr.Raghujeet Singh Madan, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

¶10

Mr.Shekhar Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr.Naresh Kaushal, 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 alleged illegal and unauthorized construction raised by respondent No.6 along-side the 'Scheduled Road' in Roopnagar. The petitioners have sought a direction to the official respondents to apprise this Court in respect of the action taken by them on the petitioners' representation dated 29.08.2014 (P-5) and legal notice dated 04.12.2014 (P-7). It is further claimed that the respondent-authorities are obligated

¶18

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.11.30 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CWP No.5220 of 2015

¶20

[2]

¶21

to act against the illegal construction in view of the spirit and mandate of the Statutes like the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 and the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.

¶22

[2] The case of private-respondent No.6, on the other hand, is that there is a civil dispute going on between the parties for the partition of subject-property and it is pending before the Civil Court. The instant writ petition is alleged to have been filed out of personal vendetta. It is further claimed that the 6^th respondent has merely renovated two existing shops and has raised no illegal construction.

¶23

[3] Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the genesis of the writ proceedings lies in the civil dispute between the parties which is pending before Civil Court. It is thus neither expedient nor desirable for this Court to express any views on merits least it prejudice either of the parties. Suffice it would be to safe-guard the interest of both the parties with a direction that renovation, if any, carried out by respondent No.6 shall be without prejudice to the outcome of partition proceedings. If the property, which has been renovated falls to the share of petitioners in the partition proceedings, respondent No.6 shall have no preferential or equitable claim on such property merely on the basis of renovation now carried out. Albeit, there is noting illegal if 6^th respondent has made renovations to keep the property in her possession to be more habitable or comfortable.

¶24

[4] Further, if there is any violation of injunction order passed by the Civil Court, the remedy of the petitioners would lie somewhere else.

¶25

[5] With these directions/observations, the writ

¶26

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.11.30 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

CWP No.5220 of 2015

¶28

[3]

¶29

petition is disposed of.

¶30

[SURYA KANT]

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

November 27, 2015 [HARI PAL VERMA] mohinder JUDGE

¶33

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.11.30 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Parveen Lata and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen Lata and Ors. v. State of Punjab 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

Harjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Daya Ram Vs State of Haryana and Others

Parkash Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurmeet Kaur Vs Niranjan Singh

Baljit Singh Vs Niranjan Singh

Swaran Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.