Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbhajan Singh @ Bhajan Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 19 November, 2013
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, Mehinder Singh Sullar
CWP No.9703 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.9703 of 2013
Date of decision: 19.11.2013
Harbhajan Singh @ Bhajan Singh
...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr. M.S.Khaira, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. D.S.Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Garg, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.
1. Prayer in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 and 2 to remove/demolish the obstruction caused by respondent No.3 on the common public passage provided during consolidation from the Chandigarh Rajpura road, continuously being used by the petitioner and other villagers for going to their fields for the last many decades. Direction has also been sought for taking action against respondent No.3 for violating the conditions of permission for change of land use granted vide letter dated 9.1.2009, Annexure P.2
2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the petition, may be noticed. The petitioner owns land measuring 42 bighas 5 biswas comprising Khewat No.63/64, Khatoni No.87, Rectangle and Khasra Nos.56, 57, 753/8, 856/6, 858/752/2, 860/759/9, 864/55, 866/58 at Village Singh Gurbax 2013.12.05 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.9703 of 2013 2 Ramnagar, Tehsil Rajpura, Dsitrict Patiala. An old village path runs along the boundary of petitioner's land No.864/55, 56,57, 866/58. Land on the other side of the path is now owned by respondent No.3 and its khasra numbers touching the path are 66 to 72 and touch Chandigarh-Rajpura road. Respondent No.3 has built- up campus on the Chandigarh-Rajpura road for running of its educational institution and for this purpose, it obtained permission for change of land use (CLU) for educational purposes from respondent No.1 vide memo dated 9.1.2009. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 had applied for permission for an area measuring 2.54 acres of land but the same was granted only for 1.05 acres and CLU was denied for 44 feet public road and 15 feet strip vide letter dated 9.1.2009, Annexure P.2. According to condition No. (v) of above mentioned CLU letter, it was specifically mentioned that "revenue rastas passing through the site shall be kept unobstructed". Despite the above condition, respondent No.3 encroached upon the public passage and has built a wall and a narrow gate of 10 feet on its right side from Chandigarh-Rajpura road. It has made a kacha passage from Chandigarh- Rajpura road along the boundary of Khasra No.72 with a gate of 20 feet wide and path along the boundary of Khasra Nos.71 and 72 upto the point where Khasra Nos.50 and 54 meet and thereby the passage left is only 10 feet. As a result, no tractor attached with trolley or any other heavy vehicle used for agricultural purposes can take turn on this narrow gate causing problems to the petitioner and other villagers. The petitioner submitted a representation through his counsel dated 9.7.2012 (Annexure P.4) to respondent No.2 in this regard. Further he sent letter dated 26.9.2012 (Annexure P.5) through his counsel to respondent No.2. Having received no response, the petitioner has approached this court through the present petition.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Singh Gurbax2013.12.05 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.9703 of 2013 3
4. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the writ petition can be disposed of by remitting the matter to respondent No.2 - the Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Development Authority to take a decision on the dispute by taking the writ petition and the reply filed by respondent No.3 into account by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law.
5. In view of the consensus, we dispose of this writ petition by directing respondent No.2 to decide the representation filed by the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law. It is further clarified that, after the decision by respondent No.2, it shall be open to the aggrieved party to take recourse to the remedies as may be available in accordance with law.
(Ajay Kumar Mittal)
Judge
November 19, 2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
'gs' Judge
Singh Gurbax
2013.12.05 12:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh