Letters Patent Appeal dismissed. The High Court held that while the appellant's father encroached municipal land, the appellant himself was not residing there and was not a party to the encroachment. Thus, reinstatement was upheld.
Dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
LPA-2188-2016 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA-2188-2016 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.11.2016
Dharambir and another
..... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
PRESENT: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the appellants.
RAMENDRA JAIN, J.
LPA-2188-2016 (O&M) -2-
of 111 persons over the municipal land was found. The name of father of respondent No. 4 was shown at serial No. 109 of the list (Annexure P-4) as an illegal encroacher upon 146.79 sq. yards of the municipal land. Respondent No. 4 was the only son of his father Late Sh. Babu Ram. The function of respondent No. 4 as President of Municipal Committee, Pundri was to remove the encroachment from the land of Municipal Committee, but he himself as President as well as his father were found in unauthorized possession of municipal land measuring 146.79 Sq. Yards, so a request was made to take disciplinary action against him. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal wrote a letter to the Secretary, Municipal Committee, Pundri, to report regarding illegal encroachment on the municipal land by respondent No. 4 being President of the Municipal Committee. The Secretary, Municipal Committee, Pundri, reported to the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal, vide letter dated 08.05.2015 (Annexure P-7) about the encroachment upon an area measuring 146.79 Sq. Yards by raising construction of a house by father of respondent No. 4, namely, Sh. Babu Ram. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal, wrote a letter dated 02.07.2015 (Annexure P-9/T) to the Sub Divisional Officer (MC), Kaithal, to enquire into the matter with regard to illegal possession over the municipal land by respondent No. 4 or whether he was residing with his father in the same house or separately. The Sub Divisional Officer (MC), Kaithal, vide his report dated 03.08.2015 (Annexure P-10/T Colly), apprised the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal, that respondent No. 4 was residing with his father in the residential house illegally built on the municipal land measuring 146.79 Sq. Yards. In pursuant thereto,
Rishu Kataria 2016.12.20 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
LPA-2188-2016 (O&M) -3-
respondent No. 3-Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal wrote a letter dated 07.09.2015 (Annexure P-11) to respondent No. 1 regarding illegal encroachment upon the municipal land by respondent No. 4 and to initiate enquiry against him by appointing enquiry officer under the provisions of Section 14(e) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (in short 'the Act'). During personal hearing on 08.06.2015, respondent No. 4 stated that he has no concern with the encroachment of land and he was residing as tenant in the house of one Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Phula Ram, resident of Ward No. 4 and his Ration card is separate from his father. Consequently, respondent No. 2 issued a show-cause notice dated 04.12.2015 to respondent No. 4 to file written reply within a period of one week. Respondent No. 4 in his reply dated Nil (Annexure P-14) took the plea that he was residing separate from his father and had separate Ration Card. Vide order dated 28.03.2016 (Annexure P-15), respondent No. 2 by exercising the powers under Section 22(a) of the Act, suspended respondent No. 4 till the regular enquiry was completed. Being aggrieved, respondent No. 4 filed CWP-6590-2016, challenging the order Annexure P-15 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 07.04.2016 (Annexure P-16), by giving liberty to respondent No. 4 to file appeal before the Appellate Authority within a week from the date of order and the same to be decided after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Consequently, respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before respondent No. 1 which was decided vide order dated 21.09.2016 (Annexure P-17). The learned Financial Commissioner (respondent No. 1) held that respondent No. 4 should be given a chance to disassociate himself from the encroached land and the allegations which
Rishu Kataria 2016.12.20 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
LPA-2188-2016 (O&M) -4-
have been mentioned in the complaint are deserved to be dropped. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 was reinstated. Being dissatisfied, the appellants had filed CWP-21041-2016, challenging the order dated 21.09.2016 (Annexure P-17), but the same was dismissed with the observations that the order dated 21.09.2016 was not suffering from any patent illegality and, thus, the same deserves to he upheld.
Rishu Kataria 2016.12.20 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
LPA-2188-2016 (O&M)
-5-
factual position, we are not inclined to differ with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and respondent No. 1.
( RAMENDRA JAIN ) JUDGE
November 08, 2016 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
Rishu Kataria 2016.12.20 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant was illegally reinstated after being found involved in encroachment with his father.
Whether a son can be punished for the encroachment fault of his father if he was not residing in the house.
Whether the findings of the Single Judge and Financial Commissioner should be affirmed regarding reinstatement.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dharambir
Another
State of Haryana
Ajay Kumar Mittal
Ramendra Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
