Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DALBIR SINGH versus JASTINDER SINGH RANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dalbir Singh v. Jastinder Singh Rana & Ors - COCP-1266-2002 [2006] RD-P&H 2198 (31 March 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

......

C.O.C.P. No.1266 of 2002

in

C.W.P. No.15963 of 1998

.....

Date of decision:26.4.2006

Dalbir Singh

.....Petitioner

v.

Jastinder Singh Rana and others

.....Respondent

....

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amar Dutt

Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron

Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jayender S. Chandail, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. H.S. Mattewal, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.S. Riar, Advocate for respondent No.3.

.....

S.S. Saron, J.

The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging violation of the order dated 12.10.1998 passed in the case titled C.O.C.P. No.1266/2002 in

C.W.P. No.15963 of 1998

[2]

Dalbir Singh and others v. Joint Development Commissioner (C.W.P.

No.15963 of 1998). The said order reads as under:- "Notice of motion for 23.12.1998.

Status quo regarding possession as it exists today be maintained."

Notice in the petition was issued to respondents No.1, 3 and 4 to show cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not initiated against them. On 20.12.2003, this petition was ordered to be heard along with the case of Dalbir Singh v. Joint Development Commissioner (C.W.P. No.15963 of 1998). The said C.W.P. No.15963 of 1998, titled Dalbir Singh v. Joint Development Commissioner was disposed of on 5.8.2003 by passing the following order:-

"In this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing order dated 22.9.1998 (Annexure-P.4), passed by District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Amritsar (respondent No.2) vide which he directed Tehsildar, Baba Bakala to obtain the possession of land specified therein and hand over the same to Gram Panchayat Budha Theh through its Sarpanch.

C.O.C.P. No.1266/2002 in

C.W.P. No.15963 of 1998

[3]

Although, the parties have filed detailed pleadings, we do not consider it necessary to notice the averments contained in the writ petition and the written statement because at the hearing learned counsel for the parties agreed that the impugned order could not have been passed without initiating proceedings under Section 7 or 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short `the Act') and that no such proceeding had, in fact, been initiated.

Apart from the fact that the learned counsel for the parties have fairly made an agreed statement on the legality of the impugned order, we are convinced that respondent No.2 could not have ordered dispossession of the petitioners without taking action under Section 7 or 11 of the Act.

Hence, the writ petition is allowed and order Annexure-P.4 is quashed. However, it is made clear that the order passed in this petition shall not adversely affect any other proceeding pending between the parties before any other judicial forum."

Thereafter, Civil Miscellaneous No.7527 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner for making corrections in the above said order by C.O.C.P. No.1266/2002 in

C.W.P. No.15963 of 1998

[4]

deleting the words "or 11" in paras 2 and 3 in the order dated 5.8.2003.

The said order has been corrected by a separate order passed in the aforesaid civil miscellaneous application. A reading of the aforesaid order shows that the order has been passed on the agreed statement made by the counsel appearing for the parties and it is accepted by the counsel for the parties that the order dated 22.9.1998 (Annexure-P.4) in C.W.P. No.15963 of 1998 whereby directions had been issued by the Collector-cum-DDPO, Amritsar for delivery of possession to the Gram Panchayat could not have been passed without initiating the proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (`Act' for short) and that in fact no such proceedings had been initiated. Therefore, the position that emerges is that if the possession of the land is to be taken it has to be taken in accordance with proceedings under Section 7 of the Act. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat in Dalbir Singh's case (C.W.P. No.15963 of 1998), it cannot be disputed that possession is to be taken in the proceedings under Section 7 of the Act. Besides, detailed order has been passed in the case of Kashmir Singh v. Joint Development Commissioner (C.W.P. No.11722 of 1999).

In view of the orders passed thereon no contempt is made out C.O.C.P. No.1266/2002 in

C.W.P. No.15963 of 1998

[5]

in the present petition. It has been held that the respondent Gram Panchayat may initiate if not already initiated proceedings under Section 7 of the Act for taking possession in accordance with law. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there has been any violation of the order of status quo granted on 12.10.1998. Consequently, this contempt petition is dismissed.

(S.S. Saron)

Judge

April 26, 2006. (Amar Dutt)

Judge

hsp


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.