Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bal Krishan Saini vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 August, 2008
RA No.85 of 2007 in
CWP No.11567 of 2006
Bal Krishan Saini Versus State of Punjab and others
Present: Mr.Gopal K.Saini, Advocate,
for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr.Amol Rattan Singh, Addl.A.G.Punjab with
Mrs.Sonu Chahal, DAG, Punjab for non-applicant-
Respondent No.1 to 3
Ms.Liza Gill,Advocate for non-applicant-
respondent No.5.
******
In Civil Writ Petition No.11567 of 2006, the petitioner had prayed for a mandamus directing the official respondents to take action on the enquiry report submitted by Sub Divisional Magistrate-I, Jalandhar regarding removal of the alleged illegal occupation of the property by respondent No.5 and also to set aside the sale-deed of the property in question executed in his favour. A direction for initiating criminal proceedings against the respondents for the alleged illegality in the making of the allotment of the disputed area has also been prayed for.
The said writ petition was by an order dated 29.01.2007 disposed of as infructuous keeping in view an affidavit filed by Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar, according to which action on the enquiry report submitted by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalandhar had already been initiated. The Court also noticed that proceedings under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 were pending and that action against respondent No.4 for misconduct had been initiated and the said respondent found guilty and duly punished. The present application seeks review and recall of the said order.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we see no reason to take a view different from the one taken by this Court in the order RA No.85 of 2007 in [2] CWP No.11567 of 2006 aforementioned. We say so because the writ petition had indeed become infructuous on account of the fact that the authorities had taken action against respondents no. 4 and 5. That apart the bonafides of the petitioners in invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court in public interest are also suspect. As noticed earlier, while respondent No.4 has already been punished for the misconduct proved against him, proceedings under the Act, which were pending before the Chief Settlement Commissioner for vacation of an excess area of 54 Sq. feet could not be taken further on account of the repeal of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that repeal of the said Act did not make the proceedings for vacation of the area untenable and that the proceedings could be taken to their logical conclusion notwithstanding the repeal. This position is disputed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents, according to whom, the Government of India have clearly instructed that the proceedings under the Act must come to an end at the stage at which those were running without any further action in the matter. We are not in these proceedings inclined to examine the effect of repeal of the enactment mentioned earlier. In our opinion, invocation of public interest jurisdiction of this Court by the petitioner was wholly uncalled for, having regard to the fact that petitioner and his deceased father had multiple rounds of litigation with respondent no. 5. It has been stated by respondent No. 5 in the reply filed to the review application that even the petitioner has continued the said fight after the death of his father and has instituted proceedings under Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No. 5. Such being the strained relationship between the petitioner on the one hand and respondent No. 5 on the other, the writ proceedings could hardly be said to have been instituted in public interest. It is obvious that the proceedings were meant to settle the personal score of the RA No.85 of 2007 in [3] CWP No.11567 of 2006 petitioner with respondent No. 5 for which collateral purpose the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked.
In the totality of the above circumstances, therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order under review. This review application fails and is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.
(T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE 22.08.2008 ravinder