Brig. (Adv) J S Jaswal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

The petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State of Punjab to pay compensation of `20 crores to the petitioner for the physical pain, disability of forty-three percent, physical and mental insecurity, denial of fulsome life, etc.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are, the petitioner is a senior citizen; he retired from the Army after rendering over thirty-nine years of distinguished service and is one of the highly decorated soldiers being a recipient of the gallantry awards -Vir Chakra, Sena Medal and Chief of Army Staff Commendation Card. His son had purchased a shop situated in village Ladhewali, Tehsil and District Jalandhar from respondent no.8. It gave rise to a civil dispute and the suit for possession by way of specific performance in that regard filed by his son was decreed on 27.09.2006. An execution MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.22 10:32 application had been filed before the trial Court for execution of the decree; I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶16

CWP-16731-2019 (O&M)

¶17

-2-

¶18

thereupon a warrant of possession was issued but the judgment debtor/respondent no.8 was not ready to vacate the property when the bailiff went to execute the warrants asking him to handover the possession. A large number of people from the market gathered at the site and attempted to disrupt the proceedings for delivery of possession. The bailiff, accordingly, submitted a report dated 23.03.2010, Annexure P-4, that ‘proceedings for “possession” cannot be completed without police help’ . Thereupon, learned District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, forwarded a copy of the letter dated 26.04.2011 received from learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, to the Commissioner of Police, for execution of warrants of possession and providing police help, vide letter dated 03.05.2011, Annexure P-6. In turn, the Commissioner of Police vide memo dated 05.05.2011, directed Station House Officer (SHO), Police Rama Mandi, Jalandhar, to provide police assistance.

¶19

2.1 Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, issued the warrant of possession regarding the property in question again on 18.05.2017, Annexure P-8, but the possession could still not be delivered due to inadequate police force. Sympathisers of the judgment debtor and his colleagues created hurdles in the proceedings and locked the main gate of the property from inside; report to that effect was submitted to the Court by the bailiff on 19.05.2017, Annexure P-9. Another attempt was made to take the possession in terms of the decree, but it could again not be taken as per the bailiff’s report dated 25.05.2017, Annexure P-11. The report also mentions that when he went to Police Station, Rama Mandi, requesting the SHO for sufficient police force; to which he stated that the police being on special

¶20

MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.22 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶21

CWP-16731-2019 (O&M)

¶22

-3-

¶23

duty, could not extend any help. He was also told to inform the police station two days in advance in future.

¶24

2.2. After a few days, the petitioner was attacked by seven goons including respondent no.8 at about 08:15 am on 30.05.2017 while he was on his way back on motorcycle from his nearby farm to his residence. He was waylaid and brutally assaulted with sharp-edged weapons. An FIR no.123 dated 30.05.2017 was registered under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 307, 109, 120-B, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Rama Mandi, District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar, Annexure P-15. This brutal attack resulted in serious injuries to the petitioner, fractures to his forearms and other injuries which caused severe mental pressure to him and his family members.

¶25

In this factual background, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the State had failed to protect the petitioner’s fundamental right to life and liberty. It is only on that account that he suffered this brutal attack. The petitioner was under constant threat and the police official/concerned SHO was duty bound to protect him from any harm. Had he acted on the letter sent by the competent Court and provided due police protection for handing over the possession of the property, the incident would not have happened. This constituted gross negligence on the part of the Department officials, thereby rendering the State liable to compensate the petitioner by releasing the claimed amount.

¶26

Per contra, learned State counsel contended that due police help was provided to the bailiff for execution of the warrants which were eventually executed by delivering the possession to the petitioner’s son on

¶27

MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.22 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶28

CWP-16731-2019 (O&M)

¶29

-4-

¶30

31.05.2017, as evident from the bailiff’s report Ex. R-4. Consequently, the execution petition was disposed of by the Court vide order dated 01.07.2017. The warrants of possession on earlier dates could not be executed for various reasons including failure of the decree holder/the petitioner’s son to be present for the purpose. Secondly, he submitted that the petitioner never approached the police alleging any threat to his life and liberty or that of his family members’. He did not ever submit any representation to the police in this regard. There is no lapse on the part of the police as the dispute which resulted in attack on the petitioner, was of civil nature. Strict action in this regard was taken by the police by registering an FIR and carrying out the investigation. Charges have been framed against the accused and the case is pending trial at the stage of defense evidence. Accordingly, respondents are not liable to pay any compensation.

¶31

Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been

¶32

considered.

¶33

There was a civil dispute between the petitioner’s son and respondent no.8 which was decided in the former’s favour vide judgment and decree dated 27.09.2006. Pursuant to filing of the execution petition, warrants for delivery of the possession to the decree holder/petitioner’s son were issued on 15.05.2017, 18.05.2017 and 24.05.2017, but could not be executed for various reasons including inadequate police help. The warrants were eventually executed only on 31.05.2017. However, prior thereto the petitioner was brutally attacked by the accused, including respondent no.8/Sewa Singh, leading to registration of FIR no. 123 dated 30.05.2017; the case is pending trial. To establish negligence on the part of the police officials for the attack

¶34

MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.22 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶35

CWP-16731-2019 (O&M)

¶36

-5-

¶37

on the petitioner, it is to be shown that there was any apprehension of threat to his life and liberty, and intimation to that effect was given to the police. However, no such apprehension was expressed by the petitioner at any stage, nor was any intimation in that regard given to any of the officials. Further , the fact that possession of the property could not be handed over to the decree holder/petitioner’s son despite issuance of warrants for the purpose for different reasons, including inadequate police help, can also not be a ground to ipso facto conclude negligence of the police in preventing attack on the petitioner. He was not a party to the suit, nor had the warrants of possession been issued on his application. Therefore, his direct involvement in the civil dispute was not there, nor had he expressed apprehension otherwise regarding any threat to him from respondent no.8 or anybody else. In these circumstances, it is too far-fetched to conclude that the State police was negligent in preventing the unfortunate brutal attack on him. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to entertain the plea for compensation to the petitioner by the respondents.

¶38

The petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.

¶39

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

¶40

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) 17.07.2026 JUDGE Mehak

¶41

Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶42

MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.22 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

Brig. (Adv) J S Jaswal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brig. (Adv) J S Jaswal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Manjinder Kaur Vs State of Ut (Chandigarh)

Prabhu Dayal Alias Prabhu Dayal Ghai Vs State of Haryana and Others

Deepak Ghai Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jeewan Lal Thapar Vs Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Navdeep Singh Vs Punjab Financial Corporation, Chandigarh

Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Puneet Goyal and Another