Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunder Singh vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 1 August, 2011
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 01, 2011
Sunder Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana
for the State.
Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate
for Municipal Committee.
Mr. O.P. Goyal, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Shilpa Sahi, Advocate
for respondent No. 4.
******
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner and the respondents in these writ petitions have exposed enough chinks in the armory of each other to reveal how the largesse were being distributed on account of political Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 2 }:
patronage. At stake was the public property belonging to Municipal Committee, Karnal. The accusing finger is towards the then Local Bodies Minister, Dr.Mangal Sain of Bhartiya Janta Party and Seth Lachhman Dass Bajaj of the same party. They have been impleaded as respondents by name to answer the allegations of malafides alleged against them. One of them has filed response. Dr.Mangal Sain, however, has chosen to remain silent.
This is a case where the Municipal Committee and the private individual involved have acted in violation of the interim order passed by this Court. That could have been possibly done due to some influence of high up. This Court had protected the public property from sale and despite that one of the respondents has been able to construct thereon and has continued to enjoy the fruits of such construction till now. It is now stated to be a prime property.
In countless cases, Courts of law have passed orders to protect the public properties from being usurped and it was done in this case. Still, an individual with apparent connivance of Municipal Committee Staff has violated the orders passed by this Court. It is a matter of serious concern and would call for drastic action to restore the majesty of law. If a party can arrogate himself to defy the orders passed by a Court of law, then he has to be apprised that law and Courts of law are not helpless and can handle and deal with such violators of law adequately.
A few facts to get grasp of the defiance revealed in this case. Two out of these three writ petitions are filed by same petitioner, making somewhat contradictory plea to claim some right in Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 3 }:
his favour. Sunder Singh is the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.7597 of 1989 and co-petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.9350 of 1989. He has not only challenged the sale of a prime plot located on old G.T.Road in favour of respondent, Jai Dayal (now dead) alleging that this was being done to distribute largesse in his favour by the then Minister, at the same time, he has prayed for sale of the same plot to him at the reserved price. When this petitioner learnt of another move made by yet another person, named, Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla (now deceased) to stake a claim for buying this plot, he filed second writ petition to impugn the same. Late Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla has filed Civil Writ Petition No.9807 of 1991 to pray for sale of a plot in his favour which is now being prosecuted by his legal heirs to press this claim. Late Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla and party have claimed to be lessee and, thus, are invoking their right to purchase this plot.
The different interest pursued by the petitioner and the respondents to advance claims for purchasing this property is the reason that they have raised pleas to defeat or contradict each other and in a way have exposed the hollowness of the legal claim made by each one of them. The Municipal Committee, Karnal and its functionaries have failed to protect its property and rather are seen to have connived with one or the other, and are clearly responsible for flouting and violating the interim order passed by this Court. They all must account for these arbitrary illegalities on their respective parts.
Since these three writ petitions relate to common cause, so are being disposed of by this common order.
The facts in brief, as taken from Civil Writ Petition Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 4 }:
No.7597 of 1989, would show that petitioner, Sundar Singh, had filed this writ petition to challenge the action of respondent-Municipal Committee to sell a piece of land situated on old G.T.Road, Karnal to respondent No.4, Jai Dayal, who after his death during the pendency of petition, is being represented by his L.Rs.
As stated in the petition, there is an open space measuring 24 feet x 25 feet lying between the house of the petitioner and the old G.T.Road, Karnal, towards east side. The petitioner claims that doors and windows of his house open towards this open space. As per the petitioner, this open space in front of the house measures 66 yards. Relying upon Government instructions dated 9.10.1987, the petitioner has claimed his right to purchase this plot, which enjoins his house, for which necessary permission can be granted by Deputy Commissioner, if Municipal committee resolves to sell the plot.
As per the petitioner, the Municipal Committee, vide its resolution No.6 dated 30.3.1988, had resolved to sell the vacant land lying between the houses and the G.T.Road of 27 house owners and had sent this resolution for approval of the Deputy Commissioner. As per the petitioner, even prior to that, the Municipal committee had resolved to sell the land to 73 and 35 house owners at the reserved price and the Deputy Commissioner had granted approval for selling these pieces of open space land to these owners. In Resolution No.6, name of one Bhim Singh was mentioned at Sr.No.16 as authorised one to purchase the open space. His house was adjoining the house of the petitioner towards southern side. His name was Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 5 }:
deleted from the resolution and it was substituted by adding the name of Late Jai Dayal (respondent No.4). The petitioner immediately represented against this action to the Deputy Commissioner, requesting him to cancel the name of Late Jai Dayal from the resolution. The Deputy Commissioner instead accorded approval of sale in favour of Late Jai Dayal at the reserved price of Rs.300/- per square yard. It is stated that Late Jai Dayal did not own any house or plot near to this open space but still was being favoured by adding his name in the resolution instead of Bhim Singh, who had a house in the vicinity.
The petitioner immediately filed an appeal under Section 252/253 of the Haryana Municipal Act against the order before respondent No.1 i.e. Commissioner and Secretary, Local Self Government. Respondent No.1 vide his order dated 1.3.1989 cancelled resolution No.6 so far as name of Late Jai Dayal was concerned and further directed that open space be kept as a green belt or it should be sold by open auction. This detailed fair order was arbitrarily and without justification interfered with by the then Minister of Local Bodies, Dr.Mangal Sain and the then Deputy Chief Minister as well. The petitioner was not aware of this patronage extended to respondent No.4. It is this action, which is being termed as favour and distribution of largess by the then Minister.
This order seemingly suggest something more than mere interference on the part of Minister. The Minister directed that the order of Secretary dated 1.3.1989 is withdrawn with further direction that the registry be executed in favour of the applicant (Jai Dayal) Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 6 }:
forthwith. Strangely, the matter had not reached the Minister in any appropriate legal manner or proceedings but was taken to him through a representation filed by respondent No.4 and this `Farmaneshahi' was endorsed on the representation without any perceivable justification. The order reads:-
"Under the new policy of the Government, the order of the Secretary, Local Govt. dated 1.3.1989 are hereby reversed/withdrawn. Registry in favour of the applicant be got executed forthwith. Sd/-Dy.C.M. (LG) 17.5.1989" Apparently, this order was passed without even looking at the policy, which is referred to in the order. The Minister did not make any attempt to acquaint himself whether the applicant-respondent No.4, who had directly approached him by way of representation against the legal order passed by Secretary in exercise of his jurisdiction, was having any house near to the open space for being entitled to ask for purchasing the same, as per the policy framed by the State. The specific allegation of malafides are made in the petition, which have remained unrebutted, as the then Minister impleaded in person, has not chosen to file any response.
The petitioner being unaware of this order at that stage was pursuing his application for transfer of this land in his favour at the reserved price. He was to learn that the Deputy Commissioner has already given approval for selling the land to respondent No.4 vide order dated 19.12.1988. Later, the petitioner was to learn about the order passed by the Minister concerned. He accordingly filed this writ petition to impugn these orders, alleging that respondent No.4 Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 7 }:
has a close association with the Minister (respondent No.5). The petitioner accordingly challenged the order passed by Minister, Annexure P-6, besides pleading that he had a preferential right to purchase this plot on the market value to be determined by the Deputy Commissioner. This Court admitted the writ petition on
2.6.1989 and stayed the operation of Annexure P-6 and the sale of the property by public auction till further orders. (Emphasis added) Soon thereafter, petitioner, Sunder Singh alongwith two other persons, namely, Surinder Singh and Smt.Raj Rani, filed Civil Writ Petition No.9350 of 1989 for allotting this open space to the petitioners and to cancel the lease of this part of land stated to be in favour of respondent No.4 i.e. Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla. In this writ petition also, Dr.Mangal Sain was impleaded in person besides Seth Lachhman Dass Bajaj the then President of Municipal Committee Karnal as respondent Nos.5 and 6 respectively, against whom the malafides are alleged. As per the allegation, Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla, is stated to be a strong supporter of Bhartiya Janta Party and close associate of respondent Nos.5 and 6. It is stated that respondent No.6 had then contested the election on the ticket of Bhartiya Janta Party and was elected M.L.A from Karnal constituency. He had also been the President of Municipal Committee, Karnal. Dr.Mangal Sain (respondent No.5) and Seth Lachhman Dass (respondent No.6) were allegedly helping respondent No.4 in getting lease of this piece of land from 17.10.1978 onwards when Sh.Ram Lal Wadhwa, another B.J.P. leader was Minister of Local Self Government, Haryana. Respondent No.4 had moved an application on 7.5.1979 for grant of Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 8 }:
lease of the land for 10 years and he was able to get lease registered in his favour for a period of 10 years in violation of the norms. Ram Lal Wadhwa was the then Minister Incharge. Respondent No.4 had never deposited any lease money for over 8 years and had statedly not used the land for any purpose. The petitioners claim that their predecessors used this for ingress and outgress to their houses and had come to learn afterwards that the same was on lease with Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla, respondent No.4. The petitioners would refer to a letter of Chief Executive Officer sent to respondent No.1 with a recommendation that the lease be cancelled, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-6. Instead, respondent No.4 used his contacts to get an order for recovery of lease money for three years with 10% interest. 15 Municipal Commissioners had then written to the President, Municipal Committee, for taking action to cancel the lease in favour of respondent No.4. The petitioners also met the Municipal Commissioner to press for their claim, being the house owners adjoining this piece of land. The matter was then discussed by the Municipal Committee on a proper agenda but the President in order to help respondent No.4, had adjourned the meeting in an illegal and malafide manner. The petitioners would point out that earlier Dr.Mangal Sain (respondent No.5) had ordered the sale of land to Late Jai Dayal, an activist of the party. Mention is then made to the challenge by one of the petitioners raised against this allotment, when operation of the allotment and sale was stayed. The petitioners have accordingly challenged the action of the official respondents in accepting the lease money for a period of 8 years, Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 9 }:
which was in violation of all norms. The petitioners accordingly filed this writ petition to challenge the action of the official respondents in regularising the lease in favour of respondent No.4, besides pleading for allotment of the same in their favour.
THIRD WRIT PETITION NO.9807 OF 1991 Pushpa Rani widow of Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla has approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No.9807 of 1991, claiming right to purchase this plot and for a direction for selling the leased property to her, besides praying that lease in her favour be not cancelled and rather be renewed. In this writ petition, the plea of the petitioner is that her husband, Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla had applied for lease of the plot on 7.5.1979 for 10 years. The Secretary had responded by saying that lease could not be given for more than one year. The husband of the petitioner then made an application for grant of lease for a period of one year and accordingly lease was made in favour of Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla at the rate of Rs.360/- per year and the possession of the plot was also given to him on 24.7.1979.
It is then averred that the Committee in the meantime had agreed to execute the lease deed for a period of 10 years and such lease was executed on 3.8.1979 and was registered on 29.7.1981 for a period of 10 years from 1.8.1981 to 31.7.1991. It is claimed that since that date, the plot has been in the possession of the petitioner, earlier being with her deceased husband, Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla. The lease money had also been enhanced and fixed at Rs.2000/- per Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 10 }:
year. As per the lease deed, the petitioner was entitled to carry out construction and so the site plan as submitted by Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla was sanctioned by the Committee on 4.9.1981. It was renewed on 2.3.1990 till 1.4.1992. It is, thus, claimed that the possession of the plot had remained with the petitioner. It is stated that the same is located adjacent to the Clinic run by Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla and now two sons of the petitioner are registered medical practitioners.
The petitioner in this case would challenge the rights of Sunder Singh to purchase this plot by saying that the same is surrounded by Nala from three sides and it is not a Fasil land. It is accordingly pleaded that no one except the petitioner can make a claim for purchase of this plot, as per the policy. The petitioner would also make reference to the order passed by Minister, Local Self Government on 3.4.1981, who has decided that the land in question be given to Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla as it will be only useful for him. Copy of the order passed by the Minister has been annexed with the petition. It appears that the petitioner had not deposited the lease money and accordingly he had made application on 4.6.1981 for extension of lease and for deposit of amount. The petitioner has also moved an application for purchase of this plot according to the Government policy. Reference is made to various applications moved by the petitioner to the Municipal Committee.
As per the petitioner, one Gian Shah had also filed a civil suit against the Committee and the lease money had not been accepted by Municipal Committee for three years from 1982 to 1985 Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 11 }:
because of pendency of this civil suit. Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla, however, had deposited lease money on 30.3.1986 with interest @ 10%. The petitioner would aver that she was not allowed to use this land for 3 years from 1982 to 1985 and would claim that the right to use this land even after 1.8.1991 on payment of lease money. The petitioner would rely upon instructions dated 9.3.1989 issued by the Government superseding the earlier instructions dated 9.10.1987, as per which, the case of the petitioner was fully covered for getting the land on sale in her favour.
The petitioner has also contested the right of Jai Dayal, respondent in connected writ petition, by pointing out that the plot of land on lease with the petitioner is a part of bigger plot measuring 1014 sq.ft., out of which 416 Sq.ft. had been sold to Late Jai Dayal, who was in possession of this portion on `Taibajari' only. The petitioner has pointed out that Jai Dayal has deposited the entire amount and the resolution passed by the Municipal Committee in his favour was approved by the Deputy Commissioner. The remaining portion of the bigger plot was on lease with Dr.Bodh Raj and was thereafter with the petitioner at the time of filing of this writ petition. It is claimed that the case of the petitioner, thus, is on higher pedestal for right to purchase this plot and, thus, the same ought to be sold to her. The Committee, on the other hand, had not taken any action on the application made by late Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla for purchasing this plot in accordance with the policy, against which the petitioner has made a representation. Complaining that some Municipal Commissioners are interested in grabbing this land in dispute in Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 12 }:
collusion with certain persons and has, thus, moved the Committee and the High Court for cancellation of lease. The petitioner, thus, would allege malafide on the part of Members of the Municipal Committee for not taking any action on her application for sale of this plot in her favour. The petitioner has, thus, approached this Court with a prayer that direction be issued to the respondents to sell the land to the petitioner in accordance with the Government policy dated 28.3.1989.
STAND OF RESPONDENT-MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE IN THESE PETITIONS The right of petitioner, Sunder Singh, to purchase this piece of land is contested by the respondent-Municipal Committee, as well as respondent No.4 and by Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.3), in their replies filed in Civil Writ Petition No.7597 of 1989. Municipal Committee and Deputy Commissioner have clearly stated that representation given by the petitioner was ordered to be filed. The Deputy Commissioner has not denied the fact that Dr.Mangal Sain was the Minister of Local Bodies and after passing of the appellate order by the Secretary, respondent No.4 had submitted a representation to the Minister and the impugned order was passed thereon.
Respondent No.4 (Late Jai Dayal) in his reply has made allegation against the petitioner for suppressing the material facts and for attempting to over-reach the Court. As per this reply, there is a Nala between the house of the petitioner, which has not been deliberately shown in the site plan annexed. The opening of the windows and the doors have also wrongly been shown in the site Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 13 }:
plan submitted by the petitioner. To point out the correct factual position, reference is made to sale deed dated 4.5.1988 in favour of the petitioner by one Laxmi Devi, widow of Sh.Jassa Ram. It is also pointed out that the Committee in resolution No.6 dated 30.3.1988 had decided to sell the land in dispute to respondent No.4 only when Laxmi Devi, the then owner of the house (later bought by the petitioner) had not asserted her rights, though she was given an option for purchasing the same. It is stated that the petitioner had purchased this house from Laxmi Devi subsequently on 4.5.1988 and, thus, has no right or locus to purchase this plot, the same option having not been exercised by the then owner of the house. As per respondent No.4, there is no open space between the house of the petitioner and the G.T.Road on the east side. There is a Nala on the backside of the petitioner's house and in between the open space. The doors and windows of the house of the petitioner opens on the opposite side of the open space and there is no path or approach to the house of the petitioner from the G.T.Road.
Having so mentioned and disputing the right of the petitioner, respondent No.4 has not come forward to show his right and entitlement to purchase this property and has only referred to the fact that he has deposited the full and final price of the open space. Respondent No.4 would rely upon the impugned order passed in his favour by the Minister, which according to him, was as per the existing instructions. This stand would not only show a gapping hole in the right of respondent No.4 and that of the petitioner but would indicate that the order passed by the Minister apparently was without Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 14 }:
considering the relevant factors or the policy in question. This would give an indication of favours being bestowed to respondent No.4 and the allegations as made against respondent No.5 are found justified to a large extent.
This aspect would receive further confirmation from subsequent developments, as can be noticed, and which have been brought on record by none other than respondent No.4. Once this Court passed an interim order directing stay of the order, Annexure P-6, passed by the Minister and for sale of the land till further orders, respondent No.4 has been able to carry out construction after getting the building plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee. It can, thus, be noticed that political patronage has led to relegating the interest of Municipal Committee to the background and each one is over-reaching the other to show favour to their favoured ones. It is alarming to notice that despite corrective action and measures taken by this Court to stay the auction and sale, the interested persons on account of patronage were not only able to get the plan sanctioned upon approval by Municipal Committee but have managed to construct on the plot.
Counsel appearing for petitioner, Pushpa Rani, however, stated that the plot over which she has made a claim is lying vacant and no construction has been carried out. Late Jai Dayal is the one who had arrogated himself to carry out construction in violation of the interim direction issued by this Court. How and under what circumstances the Municipal Committee and its officials could sanction the building plans and allow this construction to come about, Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 15 }:
is beyond comprehension and imagination. The only explanation that would emerge is that it was the connivance of the officials of the Municipal Committee to allow this to happen. Unfortunate would it be to notice that no one has ever taken any corrective measure to rectify the situation. The present Executive Officer or all those who occupied the post during the intervening periods have no explanation to offer. Even if it is taken that some Executive Officer or the Engineer had allowed this to happen in violation of law and by showing defiance to the orders passed by this Court, any subsequent Executive Officer or Engineer have also shown nelson's eye to this violation and can not escape their respective responsibilities. During the course of arguments, none could explain how they entertained the request of Late Jai Dayal for passing the plans for construction and allowing this construction to take place, when there is no sale in his favour. Late Jai Dayal fully knew the interim order and the effect thereof, while making this application for grant of sanction of the building plans and while carrying out construction and apparently has taken very high risk in carrying out this venture. The counsel representing respondent No.4 has no justification to offer for violating this order except to meekly concede no defence, when asked to explain the conduct of the said respondent. The counsel, however, has pleaded for leniency and status-quo as it is today as any direction now to undo the construction would be a colossal loss. The counsel pleads that the respondents can be put to certain terms and asked to pay exemplary or even exorbitant costs with a right to continue to occupy the constructed portion, which he is using for his livelihood.
Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 16 }:
Can a person like respondent No.4 be allowed premium over his act of defiance in violating the orders passed by this Court? I am very clear that it can certainly not be permitted. It would be a rather bad day for all those who abide by law. Such a person can not plead for relief in equity. He has no title over the land but still was able to manage Municipal Committee and its employees to get the plan sanctioned and then to carry out construction without any hindrance. He has not pleaded that he was ignorant about the interim order passed by this Court. I am, thus, inclined to believe that respondent No.4, (Late Jai Dayal), was able to do all this only on account of some patronage from some high ups may be, the Minister Incharge, and the Municipal Committee and its employees perhaps had allowed this to happen only due to this pressure. Coupled with this, is a fact that the then Minister, against whom specific allegations of malafides are made and who is impleaded as a party, has not come forward to file any response. Indeed, the M.L.A, who is impleaded as a respondent in his individual capacity in second writ petition, has filed response but only to allege malafides against set of Municipal Commissioners, who, as per him, were bent upon favouring Sunder Singh, petitioner, in these two writ petitions. The allegations of malafides are, thus, freely flying against each other and made by the petitioners as well as by the respondents, which would show that the Municipal Committee has certainly failed to perform its statutory functions independently and all officials are found wanting in performance of their respective duties. The corrective measures will have to be taken to ensure majesty of law and impression should Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 17 }:
not be allowed to go that a person who violates the orders passed by the Court, will be treated with kids gloves and can escape responsibility by paying some penalty. Accepting the price of plot now or charging of any penalty may appear to be peanuts. The value of the land now, over which the respondent, Jai Dayal, has carried out this construction illegally without having any title, is stated to be `50,000/- per sq. yard as per Collector rate. Obviously, the market value of the land would be much more than the Collector's rate as one is generally aware that no sale deed is registered reflecting the actual market rate and the trends. I am, thus, not ready to accept the plea of leniency so compassionately advanced by Senior Counsel representing for respondent No.4, (Late Jai Dayal). Respondents have to be put to terms and must learn a lesson and should know the consequence of doing something in violation of the orders passed by the Court. If any leniency is shown, it would be a bad day for majesty of law and would leave a real bitter impression for all those persons who adhere to rule of law and do not dare to disobey any directions issued by the Courts. The example in this regard can be noticed from the facts appearing in these cases before me. Petitioner, Pushpa Rani, chose not to violate the interim order passed by the Court and, thus, has no such equity to plead either to claim possession or a preferential right to purchase this property. Should this situation change simply because another person was able to violate the interim direction issued by this Court? Violator of law can not be given any preferential treatment and if it is so done, it would be a rather bad day for any Courts of law, which are to uphold the dignity Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 18 }:
and majesty of law.
The interim order was passed by this Court on 2.6.1989. As per the information placed on record by respondent No.4, he had submitted the building plan for sanction on 24.4.1990. Upon sanction thereof, he undertook the construction of shop, which he completed in the year 1991. He has placed on record certain photographs to show the construction and also the building occupied by the petitioner, which is beyond the Nala. This building is stated to have been sold to Amandeep Singh son of Gian Singh Chawla. It is noticed that the building plan was sanctioned by the Executive Officer and the Engineer in the year 1990. The initial denial on the part of Municipal Committee was hurriedly withdrawn, when the signed copy of the site plan granting sanction and containing signatures were shown and pointed out to the counsel and the Executive Officer, who had been summoned to remain present in person. It is, thus, clear that not only respondent No.4 but the employees of the Municipal Committee like Executive Officer and Engineers are blameworthy for violating the orders of the Court. The chance was given to everyone responsible to file response and to plead defence against any impending direction that might be issued against their conduct. The present Executive Officer prayed for time to have complete access, which was declined as it was noticed to be an action to evade and delay the disposal of the petition.
In the background as noticed above neither the petitioners in these three writ petitions nor the respondents are having any right to purchase this piece of land. The then Secretary of Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 19 }:
the Department is the only one who comes out clean. He had been very fair in passing the order for putting this land to sale by way of public auction, which without any justification, had been illegally and arbitrarily interfered with and negated by the Minister, who had no authority to do so.
The claim of petitioner, Sunder Singh, is pressed mainly on account of the policy instructions, Annexure P-2. I have minutely gone through these instructions, which are to the effect that there have been many encroachments in the Municipal land and irregular lease of land to the individual in the past. The matter was reconsidered by the Government and a decision was taken for selling/leasing/Tehbazari of Municipal Land by observing the directions contained in the policy. The first part of the direction contained in the policy is that Municipal Committee will not sell any Municipal Land to any individual. Exception is then carved out in regard to small pieces of land not exceeding 100 sq. meters, which may be sold to adjoining plot holders/house owners with permission of the Deputy Commissioner on the market value to be determined by Deputy Commissioner. There is yet another big `if' attached with this and it is that these pieces of land could be so sold if these can not be utilized by the Municipal Committee for any public purpose or by any other person/Institution. For leasing out the land, the Municipal Committee has to obtain a prior approval on the ground that it will not be required by the Committee for any public purpose. These lands then could be leased out in open auction for a period of five years to be renewed on revised rent, increased by 50% after Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 20 }:
every five years. As per these instructions, the Municipal Committee could give such land on teh Bazari only for festival occasions and for a period not exceeding one week that too upon certain conditions.
This policy instructions, in my view, would not bestow any right on the petitioners or the respondents to claim the sale of this plot in their favour. The first thing is that the land is not to be sold to any individual. Small pieces of land could be sold but in the discretion of the Municipal Committee as the use of word `may' would clearly indicate. No person could claim as a matter of right that a plot adjoining his house be sold to him in terms of this policy. The only right that may be seen is a right to apply and not to seek writ to enforce any such right. A person may apply and it would be in the discretion of the Municipal Committee to sell the plot if the same can not be utilized for any public purpose or by any other person or institution. This could be only upon a permission by the Deputy Commissioner, who was to determine its value. The mere fact that more than one person has come forward to stake a claim without any justification would show that this plot was required by other persons and, thus, could not be sold to individuals. Added to this would be a fact that the plot, as claimed by the petitioner, was not adjoining his house, which is also one of the essential conditions, as has been stated by the Municipal Committee in its reply and also highlighted by respondent No.4. In any case, respondent No.4 has nothing to show that this plot was adjoining his house for which he could make a claim for purchasing the same in terms of this or any other policy. He seems to be having nothing in his favour except the Minister, who Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 21 }:
went out of the way to pass an order for selling this plot to him without caring to go through the policy and the eligibility of respondent No.4 to purchase the same. This action, therefore, which in any case was beyond his jurisdiction, can not be sustained and must be set at knot.
There is yet another infirmity, which is directly confronting the petitioner for his claim to purchase this plot. This policy dated 9.10.1987 was superseded by another policy dated 28.3.1989 on the basis of which Pushpa Rani has made a claim. The order by the Minister on which respondent No.4 has relied is dated 17.5.1989. On the other hand, there is no order in favour of the petitioner and he is seeking direction from this Court. Once the policy was superseded and the petitioner had approached this Court thereafter, he was bound to make reference to the same, especially so when the writ petition came to be admitted on 2.6.1989. These policies, thus, can not be read to give any rights to the petitioners or the respondents to make a claim for purchase of this plot. Moreover, petitioner-Sunder Singh has, by now, sold his house and is left with no right to purchase the plot.
The submission by counsel for the petitioner in CWP No.9807 of 1991 on the basis of policy instructions dated 28.3.1989, annexed with the petition as Annexure P-11, will also not impress me. It is mentioned in this policy that some of the buildings of Municipal Committee have been rented out/leased or given on Tehbazari but were yielding very meagre income. It is noticed that Municipal Committee was facing lot of difficulty in getting the property Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 22 }:
vacated from existing tenants. Such property, as per the instructions, may be sold to the sitting incumbents. For determining the sale price/market value, the Municipal Committees were required to constitute a Committee as given in the policy instructions. Firstly, the petitioner, in my view, has not got any right to purchase this property for the same reasoning that it is in the discretion of the Municipal Committee to sell or not to sell. Otherwise also, Pushpa Rani, petitioner, has not been able to sufficiently establish on record that she was having lease of property in her favour. No doubt, there was a lease executed in favour of Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla but this lease expired in the year 1991. It is conceded before me that the plot is now vacant and there is no occupation or construction existing on the same. The very validity of the lease in favour of petitioner, Pushpa Rani, has been challenged through a separate writ petition by petitioner, Sunder Singh. In the reply filed by the Municipal Committee, it is clearly and categorically stated that the possession of the land in question was never given to Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla as lessee or otherwise. No lease deed was executed on 3.8.1979 as was pleaded or registered. The petitioner had no lease in her favour between 1982 to 1985 and the lease even if extended, has expired. In fact, no lease was executed in favour of Pushpa Rani and whatever documents were there, were in the name of Late Dr.Bodh Raj Chawla. Concededly, the respondents have not accepted the lease amount from the petitioner for considerable period and hence, the petitioner does not have any right to seek direction for sale of this property.
Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 23 }:
If this policy is taken into consideration, then the property/plot in question could only be sold to the lessees, which petitioner, Sunder Singh, was not. Result of this discussion is that none of the petitioner or respondent No.4 have any right to purchase this plot or a plot over which construction has been carried out in violation of the orders passed by the Court and also on the basis of illegal and arbitrary order passed by the Minister without any authority. Prayers made in these writ petitions, thus, can not be granted. The property in occupation of respondent No.4, Late Jai Dayal, has to be reclaimed by the Municipal Committee as he apparently has illegally usurped the same and has carried out construction thereon. No equity can either be shown to such a person who is violator of law and has paid scent regard to the orders passed by this Court.
As has been recently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (c) No.967 of 1989 dated 18.7.2011 in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union of India & others, it is the bounden duty and obligation of the Courts to neutralized any unjust enrichment and undeserved gain made by any party by invoking the jurisdiction of the Court. Any unscrupulous litigant has to be prevented from taking undue advantage. It has very significantly been observed by the Supreme Court that a person in wrongful possession should not only be removed from that place as early as possible but be compelled to pay for wrongful use of that premises a fine, penalty and costs. It is observed that any leniency would seriously affect the credibility of the judicial system. The situation in Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 24 }:
the present case is rather more alarming, where respondent No.4 has been in wrongful possession of the property that too in violation of the interim order passed by the Court and has carried out construction by further aggravating the gravity of the violation committed by him. He is not the gainer under any order of the Court but has gained by violating and defying the orders of this Court. It would be the duty of the Court to neutralize this unjust enrichment, which the said respondent has gained and he, being in wrongful possession, must be removed from that place as early as possible. To maintain the credibility of judicial system and to uphold the dignity of law, this action would be essentially needed, besides, putting respondent No.4 to pay the fine, penalty or costs, once he has enjoyed the fruits of this property for considerable period. It is rather a converse case where respondent No.4 has taken advantage of his wrongful act by violating the orders passed by this Court and his wrong doing rather alarmingly serious one as he is able to enjoy fruits of this property for too long.
In view of the above, I would not only reject all the pleas made by the petitioners but would issue direction to respondent- Municipal Committee to take direct action against respondent No.4 to undo this illegality and bring the situation to the status quo of the position as it was on the date of the interim order passed by this Court. This construction done by respondent No.4 in violation of the Court order must be undone and it would be so done at the cost of respondent No.4, who has shown audacity to violate the mandate issued by this Court. The property must be taken over by its rightful Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 25 }:
owner i.e. the Municipal Committee and put to use as per the legal and valid discretion in the best interest of the Municipal Committee. I would not wish to issue any further direction for disposal of this property and manner thereof as that may not be in the purview of the prayers made in the respective writ petitions. None of the petitioners have any legal right to purchase this property on the basis of instructions respectively relied upon by them.
The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Direction is issued to the State to ensure that the plot over which respondent No.4, Jai Dayal, has carried out construction is got vacated. Even if there be a need to demolish the construction, the same be carried out. The respondent-State is directed to ensure appropriate action against the employees of the Municipal Committee i.e. the Executive Officer and the Engineers who had passed the building plans and had allowed the constructions to come about and all those who subsequently did not take any corrective action to rectify the situation by either demolishing the building or to seek eviction of respondent No.4, who had indulged in violation of law and had defied the order passed by this Court.
As already noticed, respondent, Jai Dayal is no more in this world. His L.Rs are prosecuting his cause. They have also enjoyed the fruits of this illegal action of their predecessor, who has violated the interim order passed by this Court. They must, therefore, not only pay for their wrongful possession for which they are to be removed but they have to pay for this wrongful use of the premises the penalty, which is assessed as `50,000/-. This will be besides the Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 1989 :{ 26 }:
action that Municipal Committee may like to take for recovery of any damages for the loss of earnings and profits for wrongful use of this property initially by respondent No.4 and later by his L.Rs.
August 01,2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE