The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a writ petition seeking removal of barbed wire fencing on Indo-Pakistan border land without notice from petitioners, citing lack of participation and a prior similar dismissal.
The writ petition was dismissed; petitioners allowed to move an appropriate application within two months.
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.
CWP No.11113 of 1996(O&M)
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 11113 of 1996(O&M) Date of Decision: March 03 , 2020 .
Sampuran Singh and others
...... PETITIONER (s)
Versus
Union of India and others ...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: None for the petitioners.
Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Addl.AG, Punjab. *****
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this writ petition is for directing the respondents to remove the barbed wire fencing along the Indo-Pakistan border area of Punjab and in the alternate, acquire the agricultural land of the petitioners which falls in the area of barbed wire and the line of actual control. It is further stated therein that the present petitioners being citizens of India have a right to enjoy their properties effectively, which is not possible in the present circumstances.
The present writ petition was directed to be heard alongwith CWP No.954 of 1996. The said writ petition has been dismissed on 02.08.2011. CWP No.954 of 1996 and CWP No.13209 of 2000 were decided by a common order dated 02.08.2011, whereas the present petition was somehow not listed alongwith CWP No.954 of 1996. The prayers addressed in CWP No.954 of 1996 are similar
OMKAR SINGHto the prayer in the present writ petition. The petitioner in CWP No.13209 of 2020.03.06 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
CWP No.11113 of 1996(O&M)
[2]
2000 was aggrieved of the requirement of issuance of identity cards in the border area. The said writ petition was disposed of with certain directions. It is observed in order dated 02.08.2011 that the prayers in CWP No.954 of 1996 are preposterous and do not require any consideration. Insofar as the issuance of identity cards is concerned, it is mentioned that they are merely measures for protecting Indian citizens and cannot be viewed as constituting any impediment of freedom. It was directed that as and when a request for identity card is submitted to the competent authority through an appropriate application in the manner set out in any instruction or rules, the same be considered and appropriate decision be taken.
None had appeared on behalf of the petitioners on the last date of hearing. Today again, there is no representation on their behalf. It appears that the the petitioners are not interested in pursuing the matter any longer and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings in the present petition.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed especially keeping in view the decision in CWP No.954 of 1996.
In case of any subsisting grievance, needless to say, the petitioners are at liberty to move an appropriate application within two months.
Copy of the order be conveyed to the petitioners at the available
address.
( LISA GILL ) March 03 , 2020. JUDGE ‘om’ Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
OMKAR SINGH 2020.03.06 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking removal of border fencing or acquisition of land requires consideration after dismissal of similar petition.
Whether proceedings should continue when petitioners have not appeared for the last two hearings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CWP No.954 of 1996Referred¶1521
Sampuran Singh and others
Union of India and others
Lisa Gill
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
