Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KHUSHAL SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Khushal Singh v. Union of India through general manager - CWP-5733-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 5784 (22 August 2006)

C.W.P NO. 5733 OF 2003 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

* * * * *

C.M Nos.16148 & 49 of 2005 in

C.W.P NO. 5733 OF 2003

Date of decision : August 11, 2006

* * * * *

Khushal Singh ............Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India through ...........Respondents General Manager & others

* * * * *

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S BHALLA

Present: Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the respondents.

* * * * *

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)

C.M No.16148 of 2005

Prayer made in the application is allowed.

For the reasons stated in the application, the order dated January 13, 2005 is recalled. The main case is restored back to its original number.

C.M No.16149 of 2005

Prayer made in the application is allowed.

Legal heirs of the petitioner Khushal Singh (now deceased) is C.W.P NO. 5733 OF 2003 2

taken on record.

C.W.P NO. 5733 OF 2003

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated March 20, 2001 passed by the Estate Officer (Annexure P-9) and the order dated August 5, 2002 passed by the District Judge, Ferozepur Cantt. (Annexure P- 14) in proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971.

The primary grievance raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner had challenged the title of the Railways with regard to the property in question and had specifically stated that it had no concern with the said property. Additionally, the petitioner had set up a title of the said property in himself. On that basis, it has been pleaded by the petitioner that the Estate Officer as well as the learned District Judge had completely erred in law in putting the entire onus upon the petitioner, when it has been observed that the petitioner has failed to prove his title to the aforesaid property.

Mr. Alok Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that for succeeding in proceedings under the Act and for seeking the eviction of the petitioner it was obligatory for the Railways to have first proved their title to the suit property and it was only thereafter that they could have sought the eviction of the petitioner.

After perusal of the orders, Annexures P-9 and P-14, we are satisfied that the grievance made by the petitioner is wholly justified. Both the authorities below have completely shifted the burden of proof upon the petitioner when it has been observed that the petitioner had failed to prove his title to the suit property. Even if the petitioner had failed to prove his C.W.P NO. 5733 OF 2003 3

title to the suit property, it was for the Railways to have proved their title to the suit property for seeking the eviction of the petitioner.

Consequently, we allow the present petition and quash the order dated Anenxure P-9 and Annexure P-14 and remit the matter back to the Estate Officer to redetermine the controversy between the parties. For this purpose, the Estate Officer shall provide an opportunity of hearing to both the parties in accordance with law. Fresh orders shall be passed by the Estate Officer, without being influenced by the earlier eviction orders.

Parties are directed to appear before the Estate Officer, Northern Railways, Ferozepur Cantt.-respondent no.4 on October 24, 2006 at 10:00 A.M.

At this stage, Mr. Alok Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner says that the civil suit filed by the petitioner may be deemed to have been withdrawn by the petitioner. In view of the statement of the learned counsel, the civil suit filed by the petitioner, pending before the trial Judge at Ferozepur, shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.

Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of the usual charges.

( VINEY MITTAL )

JUDGE

August 11, 2006 ( H.S BHALLA )

ritu JUDGE


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.