High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
M/s Manohar Singh & Sons v. Amarjeet Singh & Anr. - COCP-1221-1994  RD-P&H 4697 (24 July 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.O.C.P. No. 1221 of 1994.
Date of Decision: August 04, 2006.
M/s Manohar Singh & Sons
Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate
Amarjeet Singh & Anr.
Mr. G.S.Cheema, Sr.DAG, Punjab.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL)
The petitioner filed CWP No.1205 of 1974 which was disposed of by this Court as having become infructuous on 25th March, 1982 in the
"The only grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that the respondents are trying to take forcible possession of the property in dispute.
Mr. G.S.Bains, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 7 says that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the property in dispute forcibly and that the possession will be taken by due process of law.
COCP No.1221 of 1994. :-2-:
In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the State, this petition has become infructuous and is dismissed as such without any order as to costs".
Adhering to the undertaking given before this Court and in order to acquire the land for widening of the road, the respondents initiated proceedings under Section 190 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The aforementioned provision was, however, declared unconstitutional by the Apex Court vide judgment dated 15.7.1994 in the case of Yogendra Pal and others v Municipality, Bathinda, AIR 1994 SC, 2550.
It appears that to challenge the acquisition proceedings and relying upon the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment, the petitioner filed another CWP No.13855 of 1994 in which its dispossession was stayed on 28.9.1994 (Annexure P-4). However, when the respondents put in appearance and contested the matter, it transpired that there was a serious dispute in relation to the ownership of the subject property. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed relegating the petitioner to the remedy of civil suit.
Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Its Civil Appeal No.1484 of 1996, however, was dismissed on 2.1.1996.
Alleging as if the respondents were hellbent to dispossess it from the subject land despite interim orders dated 25.3.1982 and 28.9.1994, this contempt petition was filed which was adjourned sine-die to await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above.
Though, learned counsel for the petitioner states that no civil suit has been filed by the petitioner so far, the fact remains that the COCP No.1221 of 1994. :-3-:
petitioner does not have any title or right established by any competent Court of law in its favour so far. Further, its writ petition has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15.3.1982, which order has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also.
Shri Cheema, learned Senior DAG, Punjab, on instructions from Shri Balbir Singh, Assistant Commissioner (Grievance), Bathinda informs that the subject land has already been taken into possession and utilized for widening of the road.
In this view of the matter, no further action is required to be taken in these misconceived proceedings which are accordingly dropped.
August 04,2006. ( SURYA KANT )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.