Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Satbir Kataria vs Urvashi Gulati on 16 January, 2012

Author: Surya Kant

Bench: Surya Kant

         HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH
                                   ****
                        COCP No.728 of 2011 (O&M)
                        Date of Decision: 16.01.2012
                                   ****
Satbir Kataria                                     . . . . Petitioner

                                       VS.

Urvashi Gulati, IAS, Chief Secretary to
Government Haryana & Ors.                                     . . . Respondents
                                ****
CORAM :             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?
                                  ****
Present:     Ms. Savita Bhandari, Advocate;
             Mr. Harish Mehla, Advocate;
             Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s)

             Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate for respondent-HUDA

             Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for MC Panchkula

             Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG Haryana

             Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for respondent No.7
                                  ****
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

(1). This order shall dispose of COCP Nos.113 & 2161 of 2010;

and 728 of 2011 as common questions are involved. For brevity, the facts are being taken from COCP No.728 of 2011.

(2). This contempt petition has been filed alleging non-

compliance of the order dated 29.04.2008 passed by this Court in COCP No.1176 of 2005. The aforesaid order in the contempt proceedings had originated out of CWP COCP No.728 of 2011.doc -2- No.794 of 2005 which was purportedly filed in public interest for the removal of encroachments from the Government land in and around Panchkula. The COCP No.1176 of 2005 was disposed of by this Court on 29.04.2008 with the following observations and clarificatory directions :-

"It is not in dispute that in deference to the above- stated order, demarcation of the subject land has been made and some persons have been identified who are alleged to have encroached upon the same. It is stated to learned counsel for the petitioner that HUDA Authorities have already issued show cause notice to them on 27.4.2007.

In this view of the matter, when the respondents have already taken some effective steps to remove the encroachments, this contempt petition is disposed of with a direction to the Administrator and Estate Officer, HUDA at Panchkula to take appropriate action for removal of the encroachments and complete the ongoing exercise on or before 30.09.2008.

However, if the petitioner still finds that some encroachments are yet to be removed, liberty is granted to him to bring this fact in to the notice of the Authorities concerned and thereafter take action as may be available in law."

(3). The petitioner now alleges that the above-stated order has been willfully violated by the official respondents No.1 to 11 as well as the other respondents namely 12 to

14. In sum and substance the allegation is that some encroachers have disposed of the public property through the sale deeds executed in a clandestine manner in favour of the private persons. The petitioner further claims that the property in dispute in fact is a common land i.e. shamlat deh of the village Railla which now falls in Section 12, Panchkula.

(4). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the voluminous record.

(5). In my considered view, no case to initiate or continue with contempt proceedings is made out. The question as to whether or not the subject property is a shamlat deh is a question of fact which can be adjudicated by the 'Court' who has got exclusive jurisdiction in such like matters under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as applicable to Haryana. 'Any person' from the village is competent to initiate proceedings for the removal of encroachments from the Gram Panchayat land and/or seek declaration that such land vests in the shamlat deh.

(6). The order dated 29.04.2008 passed by this Court in COCP No.1176 of 2005 cannot be stretched to trace out any declaration that the subject property is a shamlat deh. (7). As regards the alleged fraudulent sale deeds, the effective remedy for the petitioner(s) lies before some other forum as the issue of title qua the said property or the genuineness of the sale deed, if any, executed by the Authorities in favour of the private person(s) has to be considered on the basis of evidence which both the parties might produce on record.

(8). For the reasons afore-stated and with the liberty afore-

mentioned, the contempt petition(s) stands dismissed.

(9).               Rules discharged. Dasti.

16.01.2012                                     (SURYA KANT)
vishal shonkar
                                                   Judge