Bhag Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

of the Co n stitution of India, for issuan c e of a writ in the nature o f mandamus for directing respondent No.4 t o compensate the petitioner b y allotment o f promised area adjoining h is industrial plot situated a t Abadi GT R oad, Village Giaspura, Distri c t Ludhiana and/or to make th e payment of adequate compensation for the l oss of land value due to passin g of high tension electricity wires over his in d ustrial plot. 2. Briefly, petitioners claim to b e the purchasers of an industria l plot measu r ing 1108½ sq. yards, situated on Abadi GT Road, Opposit e Ralson C y cle Industries, Giaspura, D istrict Ludhiana from on e Vinod Ku m ar son of Dharam Nath on th e basis of an agreement to sel l

¶14

GURPREET KAUR 2025.04.24 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

dated 24.12.1984 (Annexure P-1) and the sale deed dated 03.09.2007 (Annexure P-5). It is stated that on the basis of the said agreement (Annexure P-1), the instalments of the afore-said plot were paid by the petitioners.

¶17

2.1 It is averred that Sh. Vinod Kumar (vendor of the petitioners) had inspected the afore-said plot at the time of its purchase and he had found out that certain telephone wires were passing over the said plot whereupon, he filed a civil suit. It is stated that subsequently, the Punjab State Electricity Board, also started installing poles and laying high tension electricity wires across the afore-said property and on that account, its significant portion of the above-referred industrial plot got wasted and un-usable, which led to a dispute and the petitioner No.1-Bhag Singh filed a suit for injunction against the Electricity Board wherein, the learned Civil Court directed the parties to maintain status quo vide an order dated 18.11.1987 (Annexure P-7).

¶18

2.2 It is the case of the petitioners that during the pendency of the afore-said civil suit, the respondents herein gave an undertaking to compensate the petitioner by allotting the adjoining green belt area to him on nominal rate as compensation for the loss of land and that the petitioners had deposited an amount of Rs.1,88,000/- in excess than the cost of the plot in the year 2004. It is stated that despite the undertaking furnished by the respondents, no steps have been taken to transfer or allot the area in favour of the petitioner, which has caused him severe loss and mental agony. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed for seeking relief/s, as noticed here-in-above.

¶19

During the course of hearing of this petition, a pointed query

¶20

was raised to the learned counsel for the petitioners to show any

¶21

GURPREET KAUR 2025.04.24 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

undertaking/document in support of the claim put forth by the petitioners as regards allotment of adjoining green belt area to the petitioners at the nominal rate; however, the learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to refer to any such document(s)/undertaking.

¶24

3.1 In fact, in para No.14 of the writ petition, the following averment has been made :-

¶25

“14. That unfortunately, the petitioners have misplaced the final order/Judgment and important case record of both the court cases. The petitioners obtained some of the record from their Trial Court Counsel. However, the petitioners tried their level best to obtain the copies of the plaint, written statement and final orders from the Ld. Court at Ludhiana but being old case the record could not be located. The official informed that old record may have been destroyed and the same is not available. The petitioner is hopeful that the record of the case is maintained by the respondents.”

¶26

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in the absence of any undertaking/document indicating that the respondents had promised to allot any area to the petitioners, no relief can be granted much less considered in the present proceedings. That apart, even as per petitioners’ own pleaded case, they had allegedly made some payment in the year 2004 towards the cost of the plot and considering the same, the filing of the present petition in the year 2025, has to be taken as barred by gross delay and laches.

¶27

All pending application/s, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶28

April 22, 2025 (HARSH BUNGER) gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶29

GURPREET KAUR 2025.04.24 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Bhag Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhag Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dunish Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jai Parkash and Others Vs Commissioner Rohtak Division Rohtak and Others

Rajender Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Satnam Singh Vs Union of India and Another

Santosh Devi and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Madhumeeta Banerjee Vs Union of India and Others